Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 168

Thread: Examples of possible famous/celebrity SEEs-ESFps

  1. #41

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    890
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky
    So where are all the ESFps in this forum, anyway? Doesn't anyone find that strange? Don't tell me that only INTp "computer geeks" and tangential types are primarily interested in forums. That stereotype has it limitations in reality.
    take a close look at the nature of this forum. take a look at the proportion of intuitives to sensory types on this forum. what you see is hardly an accident.
    That's obvious, but what you see isn't always what you get, eh?

    I have a new theory - based on assorted readings, years of observations and experiences, and lots of reasons - that many ESFp Fi subtypes frequently test as INFx's. So I'm giving it a whirl.

    There's no reason to believe that S types are so substantially less interested in online forums than N types, nor even theories, that they're virtually absent. Low numbers, I'd certainly expect. But to this degree? I've known S engineers, computer programmers, loungechair theologians, and such who were also very active in online forums, discussing information and theories according to their interests. And I've encountered a few S types who adamantly insist they're N's, and regularly talk socionics online.

    Not to mention - there is no reason to believe that N's are profoundly more attracted to the internet than S's, anyway. For all its "N-ness," the internet strikes me as being pretty S, if you think about it ~ certainly high potential for stimulation and activity (depending on one's browsing style!), instant gratification (speed/variety), not to mention the increasing emphasis images. After all, we're talking about using it - not coding and configuring content management systems for it. And ESFps are always hungry for info per their hidden agenda, are they not? Aren't these types known for being mercurial in nature? One would think more of them would be interested in "learning who they really are" ... and search these forums more than what I'm seeing so far.

    Anyway, it's just a surprise to visit the "Gamma Quadra" here and hardly encounter any ESFps. Yes, I'd assume there'd be a small percentage ... but ??? Then again, there don't seem to be many regular contributors anyway, so that's probably the primary reason. Still new and surveying the horizon here.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    890
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    kate bush seems ENFp to me.
    Why?

    Her music seems to encapsulate many N themes. However, supposedly ESFps get at their Fi development through Ni. I wonder how often this leads to mistyping. (I have a hang-up about mistyping and testing, by the way. Have seen too many people test inaccurately, and am near insatiably curious about how test methods can be improved to reduce such errors.)

    it may lead to typing errors. i am mostly basing my typing on my knowledge of her music, i admit, which seems n-ish and very youthfully enthusiastic in a sort of bjorkish way. as far as v.i. goes, i guess could see it.
    I love your avatar - INTp, Te subtype.

    Youthful enthusiasm. Hmm. Are there any types known for often appearing younger than they are, or seeming to be more "childlike" (in a positive sense)?

  3. #43

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    890
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    kate bush seems ENFp to me.
    Why?

    Her music seems to encapsulate many N themes. However, supposedly ESFps get at their Fi development through Ni. I wonder how often this leads to mistyping. (I have a hang-up about mistyping and testing, by the way. Have seen too many people test inaccurately, and am near insatiably curious about how test methods can be improved to reduce such errors.)

    it may lead to typing errors. i am mostly basing my typing on my knowledge of her music, i admit, which seems n-ish and very youthfully enthusiastic in a sort of bjorkish way. as far as v.i. goes, i guess could see it.
    I love your avatar - INTp, Te subtype.

    Youthful enthusiasm. Hmm. Are there any types known for often appearing younger than they are, or seeming to be more "childlike" (in a positive sense)?

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,577
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky

    That's obvious, but what you see isn't always what you get, eh?
    an excellent strategy. acknowledge both the statement and its negation as true. you can't lose.


    There's no reason to believe that S types are so substantially less interested in online forums than N types, nor even theories, that they're virtually absent.
    except perhaps observation and actual experience.

    Low numbers, I'd certainly expect. But to this degree? I've known S engineers, computer programmers, loungechair theologians, and such who were also very active in online forums, discussing information and theories according to their interests. And I've encountered a few S types who adamantly insist they're N's, and regularly talk socionics online.

    Not to mention - there is no reason to believe that N's are profoundly more attracted to the internet than S's, anyway. For all it's "N-ness," the internet strikes me as being pretty S, if you think about it ~ certainly high potential for stimulation and activity (depending on one's browsing style!), instant gratification (speed/variety), not to mention the increasing emphasis images. After all, we're talking about using it - not coding and configuring content management systems for it. And ESFps are always hungry for info per their hidden agenda, are they not? Aren't these types known for being mercurial in nature? One would think more of them would be interested in "learning who they really are" ... and search these forums more than what I'm seeing so far.
    you appear to be falling in to the trap that S types are naturally less adept at certain things because they're not N types and possibly vice versa. you also seem to have a shaky grasp of socionics (although probably you have a greater understanding of other types of jungian theory; don't extend socionics to include something which it doesn't, such as keirsey or MBTI).


    i think that if you spend some time actually observing and increasing your knowledge, you will eventually see that making broad and unfounded distinctions like the ones you're referring to is usually not a successful strategy.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,577
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky

    That's obvious, but what you see isn't always what you get, eh?
    an excellent strategy. acknowledge both the statement and its negation as true. you can't lose.


    There's no reason to believe that S types are so substantially less interested in online forums than N types, nor even theories, that they're virtually absent.
    except perhaps observation and actual experience.

    Low numbers, I'd certainly expect. But to this degree? I've known S engineers, computer programmers, loungechair theologians, and such who were also very active in online forums, discussing information and theories according to their interests. And I've encountered a few S types who adamantly insist they're N's, and regularly talk socionics online.

    Not to mention - there is no reason to believe that N's are profoundly more attracted to the internet than S's, anyway. For all it's "N-ness," the internet strikes me as being pretty S, if you think about it ~ certainly high potential for stimulation and activity (depending on one's browsing style!), instant gratification (speed/variety), not to mention the increasing emphasis images. After all, we're talking about using it - not coding and configuring content management systems for it. And ESFps are always hungry for info per their hidden agenda, are they not? Aren't these types known for being mercurial in nature? One would think more of them would be interested in "learning who they really are" ... and search these forums more than what I'm seeing so far.
    you appear to be falling in to the trap that S types are naturally less adept at certain things because they're not N types and possibly vice versa. you also seem to have a shaky grasp of socionics (although probably you have a greater understanding of other types of jungian theory; don't extend socionics to include something which it doesn't, such as keirsey or MBTI).


    i think that if you spend some time actually observing and increasing your knowledge, you will eventually see that making broad and unfounded distinctions like the ones you're referring to is usually not a successful strategy.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    890
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky

    That's obvious, but what you see isn't always what you get, eh?
    an excellent strategy. acknowledge both the statement and its negation as true. you can't lose.
    Here's the irony. To me, it's your reasoning that is incredibly shallow. But of course, we're obviously just processing info in different ways, as you completely misunderstand me. Your original suggestion struck me as being ridiculously obvious - and again, shallow. I question certain things, if I have enough reason to, for the sake of uncovering deeper truths which others miss.

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    There's no reason to believe that S types are so substantially less interested in online forums than N types, nor even theories, that they're virtually absent.
    except perhaps observation and actual experience.
    I already covered that. You're ignoring it.

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    Low numbers, I'd certainly expect. But to this degree? I've known S engineers, computer programmers, loungechair theologians, and such who were also very active in online forums, discussing information and theories according to their interests. And I've encountered a few S types who adamantly insist they're N's, and regularly talk socionics online.

    Not to mention - there is no reason to believe that N's are profoundly more attracted to the internet than S's, anyway. For all it's "N-ness," the internet strikes me as being pretty S, if you think about it ~ certainly high potential for stimulation and activity (depending on one's browsing style!), instant gratification (speed/variety), not to mention the increasing emphasis images. After all, we're talking about using it - not coding and configuring content management systems for it. And ESFps are always hungry for info per their hidden agenda, are they not? Aren't these types known for being mercurial in nature? One would think more of them would be interested in "learning who they really are" ... and search these forums more than what I'm seeing so far.
    you appear to be falling in to the trap that S types are naturally less adept at certain things because they're not N types and possibly vice versa. you also seem to have a shaky grasp of socionics (although probably you have a greater understanding of other types of jungian theory; don't extend socionics to include something which it doesn't, such as keirsey or MBTI).
    OK. How is your first sentence is not 100% projection?

    As for socionics, well, I wrote a response but then realized - you wouldn't care anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    i think that if you spend some time actually observing and increasing your knowledge, you will eventually see that making broad and unfounded distinctions like the ones you're referring to is usually not a successful strategy.
    Thanks for the tip, but once again, you're shooting in the dark. Even though the content of our interactions thus far have been akin to semantic skew lines, the conflict is, of course, a learning experience in and of itself.

    Misunderstandings aside, may I ask:
    1) what type do you believe you are?
    2) how old you are? (approx is ok)
    3) how long you believe you've known your socionics type?

    Incidentally, I've been studying typological systems for xx years, and anymore I approach it differently than most, which includes appearing to ask and pose a lot of "stupid" questions intentionally, for any number of, sometimes layered & strategic, reasons. And believe it or not, I'm hardly new to socionics. I typically rip apart what is accepted and known through my explorations in a "kaleidescopic" sort of way. It's a necessary part of my quest for deeper accuracy and understanding than what's currently "on the market," so to speak.

  7. #47
    implied's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    7,747
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    kate bush seems ENFp to me.
    Why?

    Her music seems to encapsulate many N themes. However, supposedly ESFps get at their Fi development through Ni. I wonder how often this leads to mistyping. (I have a hang-up about mistyping and testing, by the way. Have seen too many people test inaccurately, and am near insatiably curious about how test methods can be improved to reduce such errors.)

    it may lead to typing errors. i am mostly basing my typing on my knowledge of her music, i admit, which seems n-ish and very youthfully enthusiastic in a sort of bjorkish way. as far as v.i. goes, i guess could see it.
    I love your avatar - INTp, Te subtype.

    Youthful enthusiasm. Hmm. Are there any types known for often appearing younger than they are, or seeming to be more "childlike" (in a positive sense)?

    that's me as a child. how did you guess? (;

    youthfully enthusiastic and childlike--ISFp is the first type that comes to mind--but i don't think she is ISFp. i could buy ENFp as being seen like this, too. she is just so damned optimistic and such. i guess this could be said of ESFp as well, and in a lot of her interviews she comes off as a very strong-willed person. i'd be thrilled if kate bush were my dual, i admit, because i think she is a damned genius.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,577
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky
    you appear to be falling in to the trap that S types are naturally less adept at certain things because they're not N types and possibly vice versa. you also seem to have a shaky grasp of socionics (although probably you have a greater understanding of other types of jungian theory; don't extend socionics to include something which it doesn't, such as keirsey or MBTI).
    OK. How is your first sentence is not 100% projection?
    "less adept" was the wrong idea and a poor way of putting it. i perceived you as making broad discriminations against S and N types in part because i misunderstood your post.



    Misunderstandings aside, may I ask:
    1) what type do you believe you are?
    ILI, although even after wasting an infinite amount of time on this vocation i am still not really sure; the only other reasonable alternative is LII (maybe ILE if i squint).

    2) how old you are? (approx is ok)
    17

    3) how long you believe you've known your socionics type?
    an interesting question. i have gone through many phases of knowledge and many phases of doubt, although i've mostly been flickering between leaning towards ILI and about halfway between the two.

    Incidentally, I've been studying typological systems for 20 years, and anymore I approach it differently than most, which includes appearing to ask and pose a lot of "stupid" questions intentionally, for any number of, sometimes layered & strategic, reasons. And believe it or not, I'm hardly new to socionics. I typically rip apart what is accepted and known through my explorations in a "kaleidescopic" sort of way. It's a necessary part of my quest for deeper accuracy and understanding than what's currently "on the market," so to speak.
    which typologies have you studied and what do you expect to gain from asking these types of questions?

  9. #49

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    890
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    "less adept" was the wrong idea and a poor way of putting it. i perceived you as making broad discriminations against S and N types in part because i misunderstood your post.
    No problem - we both obviously just have trouble understanding each other over the internet. Oh well. These things happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky
    Misunderstandings aside, may I ask:
    1) what type do you believe you are?
    ILI, although even after wasting an infinite amount of time on this vocation i am still not really sure; the only other reasonable alternative is LII (maybe ILE if i squint).
    Can I put in a vote for LII?
    I have a good LII friend. INTj's can be cool.

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky
    2) how old you are? (approx is ok)
    17
    OK, thanks. I only asked so I could qualify your response to #1 re: probable type and context of development.

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky
    3) how long you believe you've known your socionics type?
    an interesting question. i have gone through many phases of knowledge and many phases of doubt, although i've mostly been flickering between leaning towards ILI and about halfway between the two.
    I know the feeling - all too well.

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky
    Incidentally, I've been studying ...
    which typologies have you studied and what do you expect to gain from asking these types of questions?
    MBTI, socionics, some others [...]

    What do I expect to gain? Hmm. Not much more than anyone else, I guess [...]

  10. #50

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    890
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Back on topic - more ESFps:

    Cary Grant



    Matthew Broderick



    [s:c8858adaf0]Craig Ferguson[/s:c8858adaf0]

    Sophia Loren


  11. #51
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Broderick: IEE

  12. #52
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,814
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think Craig Ferguson is IEE too.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  13. #53
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    William Shatner


  14. #54

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    890
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GillySaysGoodbye
    Broderick: IEE
    Maybe. I don't know. ESFp is what struck me as most likely, but my research there has been limited. What makes you suggest IEE?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
    I think Craig Ferguson is IEE too.
    Hmm. Maybe. But then so would be Sylvester Stallone. If you look real close with x-ray vision , they've got the same energy animating their faces and features. Sly's already been proposed to be ESFp on a few other sites. Maybe they were wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by GillySaysGoodbye
    William Shatner
    Here, I disagree. Ganin's observations are pretty decent, and pretty consistent, from what I've gathered over the years, when I compare some of his celebs with people I've known personally. He's got Wm pegged as ISFj. And Shatner IS the same as Michael Caine, whatever their type. Would you consider Michael Caine to be an ESFp? I sure don't. But I will grant that both could be ESI - Se subtypes. Subtypes can throw an interesting spin on things when we consider mirrors.

    At any rate, I feel strongly about Cary Grant being ESFp. T

  15. #55
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,814
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think Sylvester Stallone is ESFp and Craig Ferguson is ENFp. They have some things in common (maybe Ep temperment?) but they aren't that much alike. I disagree that if one is ESFp that they both have to be.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  16. #56
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,475
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Broderick has to be some Infantile type (based on his movie roles).

    @astralsilky: two people can easily be the same type in one typology and different types in another. Otherwise all typologies would be pretty much equivalent in their focus, just operating at different levels of specificity.

  17. #57

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    890
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    @astralsilky: two people can easily be the same type in one typology and different types in another. Otherwise all typologies would be pretty much equivalent in their focus, just operating at different levels of specificity.
    Well yeah, I guess, depending on how the person is tested, what the definitions are, etc. But obviously some systems are better than others - more fundamental and accurate - or rather, "useful," depending on your worldview.

    I do wonder, though, why socionics tests so closely resemble MBTI tests - at least, the ones I've encountered do. That bothers me.

    Anyway, the way I see it, both methods attempt to clarify approximately the SAME sets of underlying truths. They're assert their own expanded (and differing) definitions and interpretations about the same toolbox of functions - Jung's. They propose behavioral outcomes, even if their theoretical morphology and foci may vary (e.g., predictable relations vs. "career paths"). Differences, yes. Similarities, yes. Big deal. :wink:

  18. #58

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,577
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    socionics tests (especially ganin's awful type assistant program) are generally not regarded as an accurate assessment of one's socionics type and are usually seen as highly unreliable and not central to socionics theory.

  19. #59
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky
    Here, I disagree. Ganin's observations are pretty decent, and pretty consistent, from what I've gathered over the years, when I compare some of his celebs with people I've known personally. He's got Wm pegged as ISFj. And Shatner IS the same as Michael Caine, whatever their type. Would you consider Michael Caine to be an ESFp? I sure don't. But I will grant that both could be ESI - Se subtypes. Subtypes can throw an interesting spin on things when we consider mirrors.
    - you first have to make a clear case that Michael Caine is ESI, then another one that Shatner "IS" the same type as he is.

    As for Shatner being ESI -- he was actually hated by all of the supporting cast of Star Trek, his nickname on set was "Shat". But, as he himself admitted - and others confirmed - he did not have a clue that that was the case - even as he did things like going out of his way to prevent George Takei (Sulu) from getting his own ship as early as Star Trek II. That sounds much more like weak rather than dominant , does it not?

    The point is not that an ESI can't be hated by his work colleagues over the years - the point is that an ESI would be more likely aware of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky
    At any rate, I feel strongly about Cary Grant being ESFp. That, I will not doubt!
    Is "feeling strongly" about it and "not doubting it" a good argument in your opinion?
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  20. #60

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    890
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hi Expat,

    EDIT

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky
    Here, I disagree. Ganin's observations are pretty decent, and pretty consistent, from what I've gathered over the years, when I compare some of his celebs with people I've known personally. He's got Wm pegged as ISFj. And Shatner IS the same as Michael Caine, whatever their type. Would you consider Michael Caine to be an ESFp? I sure don't. But I will grant that both could be ESI - Se subtypes. Subtypes can throw an interesting spin on things when we consider mirrors.
    - you first have to make a clear case that Michael Caine is ESI, then another one that Shatner "IS" the same type as he is.
    To disclose such info is a matter of preference. A clear case needs to exist, but whether one chooses to reveal that or another is another story.

    EDIT

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    As for Shatner being ESI -- he was actually hated by all of the supporting cast of Star Trek, his nickname on set was "Shat". But, as he himself admitted - and others confirmed - he did not have a clue that that was the case - even as he did things like going out of his way to prevent George Takei (Sulu) from getting his own ship as early as Star Trek II. That sounds much more like weak rather than dominant , does it not?

    The point is not that an ESI can't be hated by his work colleagues over the years - the point is that an ESI would be more likely aware of it.
    I do appreciate the actual biographical research you do on various individuals and believe there is a place for that. That is your place, more than mine. I continually admire your energetic . For now, I am obviously more interested in how to spot types ... and some other related things I won't get into here. Perhaps it's the elusive challenge of it that appeals.

    Back to Shatner -

    An ESI is indeed generally sensitive to the sincerity of others. Therefore, based on the account you've shared, I can see where you are coming from. But we're talking about a celebrity who - for all we know - could've been so completely full of himself that he was indeed oblivious to other's perceptions, so long as relations were harmonious. Or who knows. I could speculate all kinds of wild scenarios, and one of them could actually be the case.

    EDIT: TANGENT REMOVED

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky
    At any rate, I feel strongly about Cary Grant being ESFp. That, I will not doubt!
    Is "feeling strongly" about it and "not doubting it" a good argument in your opinion?
    At face value, certainly not. That is simply the top layer of language which comes out to quickly express myself. I have a few visual methods I've developed over time, use in unison, and apply them in a cross-sectional way - i.e., in layered, systematic approaches, in order to draw my V.I. conclusions. They are based on others' research and my own observations on people over various types for the several years, now. I do not wish to reveal my methods at this time, as they are still being refined. So to keep it simple, my conclusions drawn after much analysis happen to come out as: "I feel strongly ..."

  21. #61
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,475
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I do not wish to reveal my methods at this time, as they are still being refined.
    lol, for a person with such a sophisticated method you still don't know your own type?

  22. #62

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    890
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    I do not wish to reveal my methods at this time, as they are still being refined.
    lol, for a person with such a sophisticated method you still don't know your own type?


    "sophisticated" --> your word choice, not mine. "Unusual ... but consistent" is more likely.

    1) again, "they are still being refined"

    2) for v.i. only, you lose objectivity when you have to look at yourself in the mirror every day (or other day, or every few days or so ...) Do you look in the mirror and see an INTj looking back at you? Oh, wait a second, I forgot ... INTjs don't have a reflection ...

    3) more importantly for v.i., I'm not in the habit of viewing my motions and facial expressions from outside myself :wink:

    4) there are a few types left which I've only recently began to explore in more detail. My approach has been to take one at a time. Sometimes go back and revise as needed. Turns out, I could be one of these types I had put off learning about. If I look at intertype relations through EVERY existing type, yeah, it was only recently that I saw one that may fit surprisingly well compared to the others. But there's no way I'd ever score that type on anyone's blasted test!!! Not even close. Plus, I identify with too many characteristics written across multiple profiles; therefore, lament the apparent lack of an underlying standard to prevent this hazy phenomenon which no doubt, some others experience as well.

  23. #63
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,475
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky
    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    I do not wish to reveal my methods at this time, as they are still being refined.
    lol, for a person with such a sophisticated method you still don't know your own type?


    "sophisticated" --> your word choice, not mine. "Unusual ... but consistent" is more likely.
    Consistent according to what standard?

    4) there are a few types left which I've only recently began to explore in more detail. My approach has been to take one at a time. Sometimes go back and revise as needed. Turns out, I could be one of these types I had put off learning about. If I look at intertype relations through EVERY existing type, yeah, it was only recently that I saw one that may fit surprisingly well compared to the others. But there's no way I'd ever score that type on anyone's blasted test!!! Not even close. Plus, I identify with too many characteristics written across multiple profiles; therefore, lament the apparent lack of an underlying standard to prevent this hazy phenomenon which no doubt, some others experience as well.
    Throw out the tests. It is extremely difficult to understand socionics (relations and types) without knowing your own type first.

    My guess, fwiw, is that you are either Beta NF or ENFp.

  24. #64

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,577
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky

    4) there are a few types left which I've only recently began to explore in more detail. My approach has been to take one at a time. Sometimes go back and revise as needed. Turns out, I could be one of these types I had put off learning about. If I look at intertype relations through EVERY existing type, yeah, it was only recently that I saw one that may fit surprisingly well compared to the others. But there's no way I'd ever score that type on anyone's blasted test!!! Not even close. Plus, I identify with too many characteristics written across multiple profiles; therefore, lament the apparent lack of an underlying standard to prevent this hazy phenomenon which no doubt, some others experience as well.

    your problem then lies in your extensive reliance on type descriptions and profiles to do the job for you. it is important to recognize that while type descriptions (although perhaps not ganin's, which you seem to champion) can be useful tools, they are not a central tenet of socionics, as are the elements of the theory such as quadra values, functions, temperaments (by some), etc. as a result, leafing through type descriptions will give you a reasonable semblance of the types (if the descriptions are by credible sources), but the overall picture is somewhat distorted from what it might be if the fundamental founding blocks of socionics were considered more extensively.



    let me say this, and take of it what you will (if you wish to believe it the result of conflicting relations, so be it, but at least make an attempt to consider the substance of what i say), but i believe that your interpretation of socionics is based on bad sources (it appears to be largely ganinesque in theory) and is essentially entirely subjective. you have a very unusual and idiosyncratic perspective of both the nature of specific types and of VI, which is fine if it works. you have made some (imo) very dubious typings so far, which seem to put significant emphasis on VI, and you have championed in this thread the merits of VI. VI is not necessarily a bad thing; some people have had a great deal of success with it, but when it produces results that in large measure contradict conclusions which most of the knowledgeable populace seems to agree on, it might be a good idea to reevaluate these procedures. again, producing controversial typings is not necessarily a bad thing; the current consensus might be wrong. however, your strange methods, at least to my eyes, are not producing much in agreement with accepted knowledge (ie famous people's types) and might merit some sort of consideration as to their usefulness and precision.

  25. #65

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    890
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky
    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    I do not wish to reveal my methods at this time, as they are still being refined.
    lol, for a person with such a sophisticated method you still don't know your own type?


    "sophisticated" --> your word choice, not mine. "Unusual ... but consistent" is more likely.
    Consistent according to what standard?
    Ahh, still digging. The maps I've developed, of course - and memories I've formed based on previous observations.

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    4) there are a few types left which I've only recently began to explore in more detail. My approach has been to take one at a time. Sometimes go back and revise as needed. Turns out, I could be one of these types I had put off learning about. If I look at intertype relations through EVERY existing type, yeah, it was only recently that I saw one that may fit surprisingly well compared to the others. But there's no way I'd ever score that type on anyone's blasted test!!! Not even close. Plus, I identify with too many characteristics written across multiple profiles; therefore, lament the apparent lack of an underlying standard to prevent this hazy phenomenon which no doubt, some others experience as well.
    Throw out the tests. It is extremely difficult to understand socionics (relations and types) without knowing your own type first.

    My guess, fwiw, is that you are either Beta NF or ENFp.
    I agree - it would be extremely difficult if one did know their own type. Rather than continue diluting this thread, off topic, I'm going to pm you so we can discuss the rest - i.e., if you're willing.

    By the way, doesn't niffweed strike you as being the same type as you, rather than INTp? I suspected you were INTj right from your first post, and each one since. And you confirmed it when I asked.

  26. #66

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    890
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    your problem then lies in your extensive reliance on type descriptions and profiles to do the job for you. it is important to recognize that while type descriptions (although perhaps not ganin's, which you seem to champion) can be useful tools ...
    Thank you, but I already understand that. The methods in existence which I know of are the following:

    1) take type tests (which we already know aren't perfect, but can work for some people - perhaps even some TYPES - more than others),

    2) read profiles and see what makes sense (well known to be a notoriously unreliable method for any type system)

    3) learn to recognize dominant functions in action - what they mean - functional analysis - model A - learn the positions for functions, what they mean, see which you can identify with in life - etc

    4) intertype relations

    5) v.i.

    6) language analysis

    We already agree that methods 1 and 2 don't work, and perhaps you'll agree that 5 might be a bit tricky when applied on yourself. so that leaves 3, 4, 6.

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed
    let me say this, and take of it what you will (if you wish to believe it the result of conflicting relations, so be it, but at least make an attempt to consider the substance of what i say), but i believe that your interpretation of socionics is based on bad sources (it appears to be largely ganinesque in theory) and is essentially entirely subjective. you have a very unusual and idiosyncratic perspective of both the nature of specific types and of VI, which is fine if it works. you have made some (imo) very dubious typings so far, which seem to put significant emphasis on VI, and you have championed in this thread the merits of VI. VI is not necessarily a bad thing; some people have had a great deal of success with it, but when it produces results that in large measure contradict conclusions which most of the knowledgeable populace seems to agree on, it might be a good idea to reevaluate these procedures. again, producing controversial typings is not necessarily a bad thing; the current consensus might be wrong. however, your strange methods, at least to my eyes, are not producing much in agreement with accepted knowledge (ie famous people's types) and might merit some sort of consideration as to their usefulness and precision.
    Ganin has very little on his website about how socionics works. I had to visit many other websites to get any of this info, russian translations, etc., over the years. Some I used to translate (which took forever) I can't even find anymore.

    That I have an idiosyncratic perspective of specific types seems to be your predetermined opinion. From what I have written on this site so far, I haven't written much of anything that could really suggest this.

    Where are my V.I. assertions in contradiction with "most of the knowledgable populace", and what are the credentials of these critics? There IS no consensus on V.I. Even Ganin's methods are often opposed, contradicted, by other socionists. I happen to consider his attempts to be a bit more valid than others I've seen, which, as I've already said, have taken time. It's a new area in which many are learning to swim.

    [hr:ea3819f13e]

    [ ... ]

  27. #67

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    890
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Another possible ESFp:

    Director Evan Oppenheimer (after watching him quite a bit in the behind the scenes material for one of his films)

  28. #68

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    890
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Linda Fiorentino



    [s:1fb325c543]Terry Farrell[/s:1fb325c543]

    Pat Benatar ... ... || Ornella Muti ... hmm, maybe we should claim Bjork from the alleged-ESFj camp



    [s:1fb325c543]Pastor Melissa Scott[/s:1fb325c543]

    Shirley Temple Black


  29. #69

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    890
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    [s:35cd783848]Helen Hunt[/s:35cd783848]

  30. #70
    Dioklecian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    4,304
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    Formula One driver Nico Rosberg:
    Yup I agree with this.
    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.

  31. #71

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    890
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    George Clooney



    Nice dual overlay here:

  32. #72

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    still think clooney's esfj. He's not a politician.

  33. #73

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    890
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ms. Kensington
    still think clooney's esfj. He's not a politician.
    Really? Why?

    Both Clooney and Cary Grant a much like someone whom I've "known" a long time and believe is an ESFp. Basically, he has three moods:

    1) the ultimate party animal who "willingly sustains an easy atmosphere," apt to tell jokes, radiate emotional warmth and heartiness, and try and get others to liven up, laugh and join in the fun. ( He is also a practical joker, with a very hearty laugh. (Incidentally, while making the latest installation of the Ocean movies, George Clooney was reported on TV as being a hugely active practical joker on the sets.)

    2) being very serious and sober - easily depressed by anything "dark," willing to hear your troubles and woes, sympathize, and then respond with practical advice

    3) suddenly and unexpectedly acting mildly withdrawn and depressed after too much (1) stimulation

    He has a wonderful richness in his presence that I have always found extremely attractive. It is a deep, dark, complex quality which the ESFjs I've known do not possess ((some of whom have actually taken type tests with ESFj results, even after I knew they were anyway)). I'm speaking on a subjective, energetic level, of course. He is blunt and forward about his sexuality, which is also attractive. He is apt to spontaneously make recreational plans, networking a group of his friends, and leave them hanging until the last minute about final details (such as whether they will actually be GOING or not, the day OF the event, not to mention time, place, etc.) It is not unusual for him at this point to find some reason which suddenly arises that means he now can't go after all the fuss and energy. This is very common, so even among closest friends he's known for being unreliable. He is also incredibly absent-minded. You can call him one day asking for something important, and he can have the best intentions in the world of fulfilling a promise he'll make to you, and then completely forget. So you may have to remind him multiple times in the course of a week or two. Oh, and he's always on his cell phone chatting with people. His typical conversations are about how much things cost, great deals he found - especially if because he knew some other guy who got him the discount - and recent party events he's been too (and if none recent, then the funniest which stand out in memory).

    These are just a few observations. Sure, not all ESFp's are this way; just that he seems to fit the "stereotypical" ESFp qualities to me quite well, and none of the attributes I've observed with ESFjs.


    [hr:413a8d8b49]

    Bill Cosby



    Gary Cooper



    maybe Tommy Lee Jones


  34. #74
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,475
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky
    maybe Tommy Lee Jones

    More likely ESTj.

  35. #75

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    890
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky
    maybe Tommy Lee Jones

    EDIT
    More likely ESTj.
    Hmm. Could be, but still leaning toward ESFp for now.
    [hr:5285877ed0]
    By the way, I've edited some of my previous posts in this thread today, removing some prior suggestions.

  36. #76
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,475
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky
    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky
    maybe Tommy Lee Jones

    EDIT
    More likely ESTj.
    Hmm. Could be, but still leaning toward ESFp for now.

  37. #77

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    49
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Juan Pablo Montoya



    Ray Liotta




  38. #78
    Elro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    2,795
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky
    Bill Cosby

    I'm not sure... Si quadra, maybe? What makes you think he's Se?? He's like the most laidback, calming comedian out there. See The Cosby Show, or any of his nostalgic routines. Nothing in your face about it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Holy mud-wrestling bipolar donkeys, Batman!

    Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.


    I pity your souls

  39. #79
    liveandletlive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,290
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Do you guys think the following people are ESFp?

    Paris Hilton
    Lindsay Lohan
    Elvis
    Elizabeth Taylor
    Marilyn Monroe
    Edie Sedgwick
    Tara Reid
    ESFp-Fi sub
    6w7 sx/so/sp

  40. #80
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Elvis and Elizabeth Taylor: probably
    Paris Hilton: could be
    Marilyn Monroe: very unlikely

    The others: don't know
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •