I'm bumping this. Anyone disagree with LIE/ESI duality?
I'm bumping this. Anyone disagree with LIE/ESI duality?
Everything that i've seen so far has only confirmed it for me.Originally Posted by Drommel
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
i'm getting more of an ESTp vibe from the pics of the William dude.
I dont see ANYTHING Fi-POLR about the dude. I'd sooner agree with Eunice's typings of ESTj (William) and INFj (Catherine).
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
I dont see ANYTHING Si-POLR about the dude.
Substantiate???
you'd agreed on the typings in the past...
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
no similarity at all, nooooooo...
who the fuck do you people think you're kidding.
that leer of his is typically ESTp. socioniko.net has a whole gallery of ESTps making just that face.
i hope i can access it again... (english section down)
here:
The photos on socioniko have a lot of quasi-mistypings, imo. There is more to socionics than VI, btw. And I can make that come hither "leer" too, if I pose just so. He doesn't always look like that.And he looks NOTHING like the scary dude you posted above him.
I'll buy ESTj for William, though.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
William does not give me the vibe of ESTp in any way, shape, or form. Merely showing a photo where he is seen at a particular angle means about zero. Looking at him here:
his eyes, in terms of how they move, do not show any Se qualities. He entirely lacks the kind of attentive physical presence and immediacy I associate with Se leading. On the contrary, he seems more Si-valuing. That is, his frame could be EJ (not sure yet), but his presence is soft. I will say re temperament, he doesn't have that might-go-all-over-the-place quality I see with EP temperament.
And in that video, although of course he is asked some mundane questions, his answers are just strictly mundane to me. That is, perceiving him through my own bias for Ni, I find everything he says, with its focus on the concrete operational details of proposing marriage, about as interesting as the description of a brick. At least some Ni-valuers, if you ask them a boring question, will begin offering feedback and ideas that are more interpretive or philosophical. He's quite content to delve into a narrative of "then ... then ... then ... then ..."
My first thought for him would be Delta. And there's a moment in that video when Kate seems very infantile to me. But not sure at this point.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
What you are saying makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks Golden!
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Mmm, one other thing, and I know it may be irrelevant, but I am really stuck on the fact that he gave her Diana's famed engagement ring. A lot of people have found it a bit creepy, and although I do think it's an amazing, iconic statement of a ring, I also think it's resonant with a marriage gone horribly wrong.
Somehow I think that the choice of ring might be more the Delta version of Fi-valuing, but I will leave that for Fi folks to disagree with. I say this because as I watch Deltas more carefully, they seem to make their decisions of right and wrong differently than I do, on a level that is more internally and situationally evaluative than I would.
That is, I wouldn't want to wear or give an engagement ring from a famously awful marriage. First, it's just the principle of the thing. Ring from shitty marriage = no. Also, there is so much history in the ring, and on a personal level it would remind me of a mother lost, of things gone wrong. Also, I would know that the public would associate this ring with Diana and Charles and make it a subject of discussion, something to avoid.
But if I put myself in William's place, he probably has particular private feelings about his mother with which that ring resonates, in terms of his connection to her. And that overrides any other kinds of concerns for him, I'd guess, and Kate, knowing how it is important to him, probably was honored by his choice.
/ TOTAL SPECULATION
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
3:12 ≠ all
The English page is still there but many of the site's links are borked, so I find what I'm looking for there with google. Enjoy the yin sanpaku faces. Note, too, the caveats on socionioko.net's photo gallery:
These portraits have been photographed by Yekaterina S. Filatova, a socionist from St. Petersburg, since 1991. She gave us her permission to place some of her pictures at our site. She did not use any “visual identification” methods – she is rather much critical towards such methods, and never wants to “type” pictures which some people send to her. On the contrary, she first determined the type of the person (by interviewing, in course of long contacts, etc.) and only then, when this person expressed his/her agreement with the type description and his/her permission for being photographed, she made his/her pictures in several standard perspectives (which allowed comparing pictures of different people with each other). In addition, she often received feedback from these people and kept contacts with them, since many of them were her former students, colleague professors or even practicing socionists. If anybody later expressed his doubts about the correctness of his/her type identification, then his/her pictures were removed from the collection to a separate folder marked “dubious” for future verification. The total number of portraits made by her exceeds several thousands, and the most reliable of them have been published in her books.
Later she compared her pictures, and discovered so-called “quasi-twin” series within each of the 16 types. However, they were similar not as much by facial traits (form of nose, lips etc.) as by their characteristic mimicry (facial expressions). For this reason, we strongly disagree with the approach of Sergei Ganin, the owner of www.socionics.com, who determines types of celebrities using the method 'he/she facially reminds me a person whose type is XYZ". As a part of psychology, socionics should use scientific approach of studying people characters, instead of physiognomics and other pseudo-sciences.
I strongly disagree with the approach of Sergei Ganin too. Pretty much everything on www.socionics.com is rubbish (with the exception of Gulenko's descriptions).
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Those caveats make it clear that the typings of the photos were thoroughly checked, but the tendency for types to make the same facial expressions is rampant throughout all the photo listings. VI doesn't have to be the basis for the project for the phenomenon to exist at all. Chances are if the photos are correctly typed and you know a double of one of them their types will be identical.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
What's also rampant is a tendency to type others according their personal attraction/repulsion, much like choosing a president/PM to lead your country by saying "I'd like to drink a beer with this guy." I just brought it up to de-emphasize VI in determining mental makeup, most especially the phrenological comparison of facial features over facial expressions. It shouldn't be thrown out entirely but it shouldn't take precedence over interviews, conversation, books/music/other works, known history, etc.
I think she could be LSI... And I think William is whatever type John Travolta is... IEI?
EDIT: Take back IEI. Not sure now.
Last edited by discojoe; 05-04-2011 at 06:55 PM.
How tall are you?
So that's actor Clancy Brown?
If I were going to make a case for him as ESTp, using this video:
I would say, see how his eyes occasionally go flick-flick, flick-flick, these fast movements? Still, still, still, still ... flick-flick. I would say, see how his physical presence is expansive and somewhat disorganized-looking? That is, not all parts are moving in harmony, tightly coordinated from head to toe. That looks EP to me. He's not really composed--he could just go any direction in any moment, if I try to model in my mind how he will be moving and behaving in 2 minutes, 5 minutes, etc. Slightly unpredictable. It looks different from one EP to the next, but I see it in him.
I would say, did you see that goofy face he pulled briefly at the camera? It was unexpectedly there, and it was instantly gone. That's a classic SLE moment.
He's showing those odd mixtures I'm always trying to figure out how to articulate in SLE: a laid-back and loose framework holding an intense here-and-now way of processing the world? A dry, pragmatic approach to things punctuated by total goofiness?
His way of speaking? Very direct, somewhat concise, each word is impactful, but he also has an offhand quality in speaking. It's like that old Broadway actors' axiom that goes something like, "It's better to be strong and wrong than right and weak." He's sorta like, "I'll say this thing, but I'm not invested in it, but if I'm going to say it, I'll say it strongly."
Now, I'm not saying for sure he's SLE, b/c I watched this video very briefly, but that's how I'd make a case for it. Those are things I look for if I'm considering SLE as someone's type. And I don't see any of it in William.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
The vibe I get from William and Kate is LIE and ESI, respectively. I haven't studied them closely though, so it's not much more than a vibe.
Quaero Veritas.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
