Socionics Beta types Examples

[nifl]

i find her cuter on photos. expected EII going into videos

[Sol]

Gennadiy Burda - ESTP

[Sol]

Alexander Kerensky - ENFJ

he could become Russian Hithler

[godslave]

IEI

How the heck did she get 11 M subscribers ?? I mean she's one the voices of Psych2Go videos but when I see her channel, it's basically just a diary channel... That said, I subscribed to her channel too so

[Sol]

bashbunni - INFP

[Sol]

TaroMakiya - INFP

#3

[Ruby13357]

Bong QiuQiu seems like an IEI.




Typing her as IEI because she had a best friend Xiaxue whom she fell out with and the both of them would frequently break into tears when talking about their broken friendship. Xiaxue seems like an SEE, the both of them are most likely semi-duals.

[nifl]

Simona Coppola
EIE

[godslave]

Film Composer Danny Elfman



E to the I to the E !

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

[Rusal]

Dun Dun
Mariska Hargitay- LSI




Cande Copello, influencer
SLE

[The Reality Denialist]

Münecat EIE

Very sarcastic critic but not ILI.

[Sol]

munecat - INFP
it's not known does she make texts and scenario totally herself. or with a help of other people, which are situationally hired or a part of blogger's team

Cande Copello - mb ISFP

[Rusal]

Cande Copello - mb ISFP

Possible. She does not look like a poster child for a T type look, exactly. I'll gladly concede. But her intonation, the fact that I'd venture she seems static and has a wall-to-wall speech that leaves little room for thoughtful in-between and the way she chooses to do the edits you'l find that that often travels off-camera and what you have is a manager of the pace around her that deprives others of the opportunity to the same initiative more or less with the same demeanor. ESEs cannot manipulate their environment in that direct way Cande's demeanor hints at us on camera, how could SEIs? Her offline persona is probably inconspicuously expansive. And what happens in cases like that I've seen is that the chances of something akin to ‘reality disruption' for everybody around that type of person tend to increase and I’ve been able to sort of predict really using basic knowledge on the forum: when a person speaking over others to settle affairs in very specific cases e.g. instinctively and consistently taking the lead even in the presence of the official authority figure in an apparently minor but significant way that changes the dynamic in their favor, one transfer is that sometimes the urge to be constantly rearranging dynamic is linked to the physical with more energetic body movements that a person also inflicts on those near. Think extreme: restless tomboy young woman that gets in everyone's space, is confident enough to become the informal leader, literally takes people and physically move them like second-nature, has passion arrests with effusive and even painful displays of affection to those in her vicinity, all red flags for aggressor-victim type of interaction, how do you turn around and type them a Caring type? Now close your eyes and imagine the way she speaks and retain only that. Only you can't because it's not in your language and your non-verbal impressions can't cope with what's more important.

[Sol]

@Rusal
for "famouses" is better to use intuitive impressions from nonverbal behavior

ESTP to compare impressions: 1, 2
T types are "cold" and do not look as kids. At least, in my perception.

[godslave]

@Rusal
for "famouses" is better to use intuitive impressions from nonverbal behavior

ESTP to compare impressions: 1, 2
T types are "cold" and do not look as kids. At least, in my perception.

What about Fe role ? Isn't it about a T type not being perceived as cold ? What about Fi Lead types Fe ? Isn't Fe ignoring perceived as cold and "still water runs deep" ? What about Fe Mobilizing, aren't SLEs and LIEs trying to not be perceived as cold ? What about kids with T types ? Do they not look like kids too, at least in most people perception ?

[Sol]

What about Fe role ?

To think that T, especially base T, express much of emotions is baseless heresy. As many other Augustunavichiute's hypothetical ideas.
While bloggers common behavior and general impression is not even about "role" strange idea.

As seems I explained before, what is possibly is that in some conditions is arised an activity of all weak functions. Where such arising for weakest and nonvalued "role" is perceived as the most annoying (hard) and should be done the least appropriately (naturally). What a human may perceive as tryes harder there and externally is noticed as most artificial. This could lead Augustinavichiute to strange idea about "role".
As Jung type is a pathology, then as hypothetical example, when a human meets new people and wants to look better he may try to hide this pathology, what means to show lesser type accentuated behavior, - to activate his weaker functions more. All of weak! Other conditions to arise weak functions may be dealing with too new situation and such to try analyze it with fuller perception (where talking with new people would be a particular case).
During this T type would not look as F type unreasonable (badly thinking) kid. He'd look emotionally artificial. It's so for my perception of F types. The similar infantile/returded associations may appear when are seen people having other opposite functions. As mainly we keep the attention on own strong regions and hence firsly notice bad skills of those people. For leading function (what is T for me) region such associations should be prevailing. While for perception of base F types T types can associate with kiddy behavior the most.

Forget incorrect (partly as minimum) hypothesis of "role". While when use it - this should be for related situations. Where no new people near to talk with, where making videos is someone's regular activity - it's not much related to "role", and weak functions should stay minimized.

[godslave]

To think that T, especially base T, express much of emotions is baseless heresy. As many other Augustunavichiute's hypothetical ideas.
While bloggers common behavior and general impression is not even about "role" strange idea.

Well, I didn't say that a T type with Fe "Role" or "Mobilizing" since I mentioned those types in particular, should express "much of emotions" but at least a normalized (2D) expression according to the situation esp for LIEs and LSEs since those types because they also value Fi ( and are rational extroverts), their emotions tends to be more appropriate to the situation than the T types who have an F Information Element in the vulnerable function.

Aushra's Model A factors in the Role function so it's not hypothetical but theoretical since it is part of the fundamental structure of the Psyche according to socionics "Theory".

As seems I explained before, what is possibly is that in some conditions is arised an activity of all weak functions. Where such arising for weakest and nonvalued "role" is perceived as the most annoying (hard) andshould be done the least appropriately (naturally). What a human may perceive as tryes harder there and externally is noticed as most artificial. This could lead Augustinavichiute to strange idea about "role".

Well, according to Functions dimensionality (I know it's not an Aushra Idea but as far as I know, it has been validated by her nonetheless) a 2D function is "done appropriately" that's precisely the point of any 2D Function.

In order for a human (not an AI of course !) to perceive the expression of a function as 'try hard" in another person, he or she must have a stronger function that what the other person who manifestly values this function (probably mobilizing) is "trying hard" to express. That said "most artificial" doesn't mean cold when it comes to 2D Fe Role since it is perceived as adequate by both the subject and society even if the subject doesn't value it.

As Jung type is a pathology, then as hypothetical example, when a human meets new people and wants to look better he may try to hide this pathology, what means to show lesser type accentuated behavior, - to activate his weaker functions more. All of weak!
During this T type would not look as F type unreasonable (badly thinking) kid. He'd look emotionally artificial. It's so for my perception of F types.

Well, I don't know what you mean by "type is a pathology", I suppose that you're talking about the Psychotype as a complex (that's correct) combined with some aspects of the Persona here. Now, when a human meets another human (again, not an AI !) what he or she incarnates is the persona i.e. roughly what he or she assumes about a set of behaviors and mental processes his/her idea of him/herself must correspond to. In socionics that would translate to the Super-Ego functions not any "weaker functions". As for the artificial emotion I already addressed it above.

The similar infantile/returded associations may appear when are seen people having other opposite functions. As mainly we keep the attention on own strong regions and hence firsly notice bad skills of those people. For leading function (what is T for me) region such associations should be prevailing. While for perception of base F types T types can associate with kiddy behavior the most.

Yes, however this is true only for the Super-ID functions not for the Super-Ego functions which are not perceived as kiddy behavior by a type with one of those function in his or her Ego because like I said 2D functions of the Super-Ego namely the Role function is always perceived as appropriate to the situation. That said, as a reminder, socionics doesn't take into account psychopathology so all the TIMs are to be considered "healthy".

[Sol]

according to Functions dimensionality

"dimensionality" is not Socionics to discuss it

> socionics doesn't take into account psychopathology so all the TIMs are to be considered "healthy"

Socionics is Jung typology (with expansions), which is about a pathology. About bad consciouse level of weak functions and problems often with it: neurotic symptoms, abnormal behavior in weak functions.
When texts of Socionics say that behavior or abbilities in weak regions is often bad (this supposes compared to social norms), - it's about pathological level of skills, about partial mental retardness, inadequacy, infantilism. To relate to a pathology is enough to be a predisposing factor for a behavior and traits worse than in social average (norms).
When Socionics points on "bad IR" (superego/conflictor, mainly) - people with who is not big problem to deal for the majority, but not for you - this fits to "below norms" and hence a pathology too.
All 4 functions are _equally_ important for _any practical_ task in its life context. So when a part of info gets significantly more of an attention this means psyche accentuation. Besides higher neoriticism from Jung type what is for anyone, also for most people to have Jung type means that half of functions were underdeveloped to stay below social norms, somewhere on kids age level. The analogue with functions disproportion would be the lack of body symmetry, what: looks worse (there were researches), may make worse body functioning, is among signes of pre-born negative factors (genetic, environmental) which were obstacles to normal body development and could lead to different pathologies or worse traits. By existing dichotomy tests stats more of people get functional balance near equality - so this can be optimal balance, the same as with body symmetry.
Weakness, problems/suffering and health are opposite terms. Jung type means a half of mind is developed below social average, functioning worse than social norms are. Plus it adds to neuroticism, as the consciousness is partly blind to opinions of 2 functions. So those express it by archaic formats and distort normal consciousness work, - exist inner conflicts, lack of personality integration. That's why Jung type can be thought as a psyche disorder. Even if it allows to do something better by stronger developed functions, - having the type leads a human to more suffering. While the whole practical result can be same (or worse after neurotisation) as no type would be - as exists negative compensation from lesser quality processing by weaker functions.

You argumented by non-related to Socionics and rejected what is evident on the surface. Despite had enough info for other.
I've thorougly explaned you before my negative relation to "role" nonsense so there was no use to offer me answer about that again. And similarly as before you've applied inappropriately that "role" idea.

The lesser you'll be trusting and using of baseless part of types theory and same baseless hypotheses of non-Socionics, - the lesser mistakes in types you'll do, the theory will work more as expected, and mb lesser of disagreements with others you'll get.

You seems to deal unreasonably with types on regular basis. Repeat mistakes.
I see not enough use in discussions with such approach.

[godslave]

"dimensionality" is not Socionics to discuss it

Let's agree that it's not your conceptualization of socionics. That would be fair enough.

> socionics doesn't take into account psychopathology so all the TIMs are to be considered "healthy"
Socionics is Jung typology, which is about a pathology. About bad consciouse level of weak functions and problems often with it.

Well, that's a bit of a stretch isn't it ? If typology is about pathology then either we are all sick or certain people or dare I say most people don't have a type. Although I'm aware of the fact that we are all more or less neurotic and that's a fundamental concept in Freudian Psychology (as a reminder Jung was a Freudian !), and that in order to overcoming life challenges according to Feud and Jung, we must integrate some unconscious aspects of our personality to the consciousness. It is thus very tempting to conceptualizing the process of individuation as some kind of healing process which implies that each and everyone of us is somewhat sick in the first place. But like I said that's a bit of a stretch.

When texts of Socionics say that behavior or abbilities in weak regions is often bad (this supposes compared to social norms), - it's about pathological level of skills, about partial mental retardness, inadequacy, infantilism.

Again, "often bad "doesn't mean always bad and if bad it doesn't mean that it's systematically pathologically bad. People must develop, at least they are supposed to learn from experience (Parental education, School instruction etc...). If a person can't do that then yes there might be an underlying pathology. I like this Jung quote : "If you are unconscious about certain things that ought to be conscious then you are dissociated".

You argumented by non-related to Socionics and rejected what is evident on the surface. Despite had enough info for other.
I've thorougly explaned you before my negative relation to "role" nonsense so there was no use to offer me to answer about that nonsense. And similarly as before you've applied inappropriately that "role" idea.

I don't know what you considered as non-related to socionics arguments since I talked only about [Jung + Aushra] which is precisely your opinion of what socionics truly is like you often mentioned it in this forum.

As for the "Role nonsense" well, again it's your take on it which is manifestly different from that of Aushra. I don't think that I applied inappropriately the "Role" idea, that has to be demonstrated.

The lesser you'll be trusting and using of baseless part of types theory and same baseless hypotheses of non-Socionics, - the lesser mistakes in types you'll do, the theory will work more as expected, and mb lesser of disagreements with others you'll get.

I don't particularly trust and use what you consider as "baseless part of types theory" whatever that might be, in fact I doubt more than I trust in general but fair enough.

You seems to deal unreasonably with types on regular basis. Repeat mistakes.
I see not enough use in discussions with such approach.

Yes you're right my typing skills suck ! That said, I can assure you that I'm willing to learn from you or anybody for that matter. Maybe can you share a link about your conceptualization of socionics so that I can try to understand it better.

[Rusal]

@Rusal
for "famouses" is better to use intuitive impressions from nonverbal behavior

ESTP to compare impressions: 1, 2
T types are "cold" and do not look as kids. At least, in my perception.

I watched some of their stuff. Teal Swan's videos are mostly in presentation form but I came across this snippet (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/18Fny2u3mjk) where she appears to be in a conversation with someone else and ocular oscillation along with mouth and tone changes. She's actually LSI.

Beta have their own form of leniency towards ST’s own disconnection from reality (yes, I just wrote that). Unthinkable for an alpha NTs to pose the same questions as an SLE in public. Every quadra has their version of ‘kiddy’ behavior. I suppose.

Cande Copello still strikes me as se valuing. A couple of SEEs out there are a mix of a more playful presentation but you can tell aggressor style is there, like with some porn performers. Maybe there's something going on there with Cande.

[Sol]

Ulyana Taro - INFP

[Distance]

ESTP

[Sol]

Wolffix - INFP

[Rusal]

Alan Ritchson - SLE

[Ruby13357]

This youtuber Kiki had been giving off some irritating Fe vibes...IEI for her type probably.

[Sol]

Aleksandr Plyuschev [0:10] - ESTP

Kiki - ISFP
Alan Ritchson - ESTP

Seems noobs start to use nonverbal method appropriate for famouses. A little more and they'll can identify better types of random people in typing interviews, after the addition of usage of nonverbal data besides common behavior and with limiting the theory to trusty part. Mb even will understand own correct types after IR usage. This can be long way for significant improvement, anyway.

[Rusal]

Seems noobs start to use nonverbal method appropriate for famouses. A little more and they'll can identify better types of random people in typing interviews, after the addition of usage of nonverbal data besides common behavior and with limiting the theory to trusty part.

The irony: nonverbal can best be used for extreme, quite bright example of types (actors, media people). The more 'normal' people you meet, the more you need to incorporate deviant criteria to guess correctly. Those are the boundaries of VI.

That's how I know Teal Swan is probably LSI not SLE as you said. I consider things you completely overlook even with what, 30 years of doing this? You got lazy.

VI is good for ballparking but many times not definitive.

[Ruby13357]

Addy Lee is probably an SLE, he had so much aggression in his speech, and also lacks tact in the way he speaks (Fi PoLR). He had went into a business partnership with two celebrities, an IEI and an ILI. He gets along very well with the IEI celebrity and he claimed the IEI is "a good girl", but he had a huge fallout with the ILI celebrity Ponsak.
His business partnership with the IEI is so smooth I suspect the both of them are duals, I'm yet to hear him say anything bad about the IEI.
But the ILI celebrity is like his good-friend-turned-enemy.
The ILI celebrity had pulled out of the business to salvage his friendship with the both of them, but Addy Lee was still unhappy and he went into a 2-hour tirade against the ILI celebrity. Apparently there were a bunch of misunderstandings between the both of them.
If Addy Lee is an SLE and he is semi-duals with the ILI celebrity, this would explain why their friendship had gone haywire, and also the rift in their friendship had caused him too develop a bunch of health issues and landed in hospital.

[Rusal]

Beck Bennett maybe EIE

[Sol]

Beck Bennett - ENTP

[Rusal]

Bennett most likely ethical.

[Distance]

LSI

[Sol]

ESTP

[Tallmo]

This doctor seems EIE

[Still Alive]

This doctor seems EIE

too calm, collected, speech too slow, introverted. this is an EIE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XciQKl7PQ1U

[Metanoia]

ESTP

Donald Trump sports a new wig other than his own I see. It kinda fits him!

[Sol]

Donald Trump sports a new wig other than his own I see.

[Sol]

Sub Rosa - ENFJ

#1

[nifl]

Erica Lindbeck
LSI, SLE