Gulenko's typings of forum members AKA Big G SquaD

[Number 9 large]

I can only really say I'm an INXX type at the moment, and that for me, I find typologies like Socionics as only being able to tell me what I already know about myself.

not IN, you clearly come up with little facts and statements that ignore the broader whole, like zooming in on verses from the quran, ignoring the broader side of history.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

not IN, you clearly come up with little facts and statements that ignore the broader whole, like zooming in on verses from the quran, ignoring the broader side of history.

Something is true or it isn't.

[Number 9 large]

Something is true or it isn't.

HUAHEUHAUHEU

[Socionics Is A Cult]

HUAHEUHAUHEU

Yes, probably.

[Number 9 large]

Yes, probably.

as long as you think you smart thats important

[Socionics Is A Cult]

as long as you think you smart thats important

Oh dear.

[Nobody]

you're really irritating. you can't comprehend what other people are talking about, yet you constantly insult them.

youre fucking stupid. give me back ur LII badge

But you can have mine. I made it out of chocolate.

So you're ALIIve again.

[SlytherinPower]

Niki and Gabi are twins who both have separate YouTube channels & a channel together. Apparently they haven't always gotten along well, & they don't seem to have the same personality imo but what do you guys think?

https://youtu.be/3IGmzTE4rik

[SlytherinPower]

Also

Gabi

https://youtu.be/3Ymbo9g9sKA

Niki

https://youtu.be/qULTK5DdW58

[Still Alive]

Also

Gabi

https://youtu.be/3Ymbo9g9sKA

ugh , couldn't watch more than 3 minutes. might be my conflict type. the other girl seems extroverted too, maybe ENxx but they are both so uninteresting I can't really watch them.

edit: wow their main channel has 10 mio subs. maybe I will force myself to watch more. Gabi seems like an SEE, shouldn't take long to figure out Niki who seems a bit more interesting to me at least.

[SlytherinPower]

ugh , couldn't watch more than 3 minutes. might be my conflict type. the other girl seems extroverted too, maybe ENxx but they are both so uninteresting I can't really watch them.

Thought I'd post since people in here were talking about identical twins & as far as I know they're identical (although Gabi's gotten plastic surgery on her face). Gabi easily could strike me as being SEI tbh. She seems so into everything to do with aesthetics. Niki easily strikes me as being ENxx agreed.

[Still Alive]

Also

Gabi

https://youtu.be/3Ymbo9g9sKA

Niki

https://youtu.be/qULTK5DdW58

yeah I think Gabi is an ESFp and Niki an ENFp. both are normalising subtypes. quite similar types imo. it's interesting to see the differences in how they present themselves bc of their type

https://ibb.co/qg1D5gy (Niki)

https://ibb.co/C8Rztxh (Gabi)

[SlytherinPower]

yeah I think Gabi is an ESFp and Niki an ENFp. both are normalising subtypes. quite similar types imo. it's interesting to see the differences in how they presents themselves bc of their type

https://ibb.co/qg1D5gy (Niki)

https://ibb.co/C8Rztxh (Gabi)

Yeah I follow both on Instagram & the style difference is interesting to see.

[SGF]

Also

Gabi

https://youtu.be/3Ymbo9g9sKA

Niki

https://youtu.be/qULTK5DdW58

kekw, neither looks like they could do yard work or deal with much hardship. Gabi also seems to be overly fussy and a bottomless pit where money would vanish. What a waste.

[SlytherinPower]

kekw, neither looks like they could do yard work or deal with much hardship. Gabi also seems to be overly fussy and a bottomless pit where money would vanish. What a waste.

I mean.. as long as it's her money that she's making & spending what's the difference? Lol But the point was that I don't think twins are automatically the same personality type.

[SGF]

I mean.. as long as it's her money that she's making & spending what's the difference? Lol But the point was that I don't think twins are automatically the same personality type.

IDENTICAL twins. Not twins. There is a difference:

Fraternal, or dizygotic, twins are 2 separate fertilized eggs, they usually develop 2 separate amniotic sacs, placentas, and supporting structures. Identical, or monozygotic, twins may or may not share the same amniotic sac, depending on how early the single fertilized egg divides into 2.

If twins are a boy and a girl, clearly they are fraternal twins, as they do not have the same DNA. A boy has XY chromosomes and a girl has XX chromosomes. Girl-boy twins occur when one X egg is fertilized with an X sperm, and a Y sperm fertilizes the other X egg.

Sometimes health care professionals identify same-sex twins as fraternal or identical based on ultrasound findings or by examining the membranes at the time of delivery. The best way to determine if twins are identical or fraternal is by examining each child’s DNA.. as identical twins have identical DNA and fraternal twins don't.

[SlytherinPower]

IDENTICAL twins. Not twins. There is a difference:

Fraternal, or dizygotic, twins are 2 separate fertilized eggs, they usually develop 2 separate amniotic sacs, placentas, and supporting structures. Identical, or monozygotic, twins may or may not share the same amniotic sac, depending on how early the single fertilized egg divides into 2.

If twins are a boy and a girl, clearly they are fraternal twins, as they do not have the same DNA. A boy has XY chromosomes and a girl has XX chromosomes. Girl-boy twins occur when one X egg is fertilized with an X sperm, and a Y sperm fertilizes the other X egg.

Sometimes health care professionals identify same-sex twins as fraternal or identical based on ultrasound findings or by examining the membranes at the time of delivery. The best way to determine if twins are identical or fraternal is by examining each child’s DNA.. as they have identical DNA.

Well I just Google searched it & Niki & Gabi are identical twins. Gabi's gotten plastic surgery on her face though. She's had her nose & eyes done. So in that case, do they seem like the same type?

https://youtu.be/Toe1YAi--QE

[Sol]

I don't think twins are automatically the same personality type.

What makes a type is not known.
Definetely it's not made by Gulenko typing or by what people like to fantasy at yourself today, though some noobs seems to act so.

Also when a trait has genetic factor this does not mean that as the only factor.

Based on known there are no reasons to claim that identical twins can't have different Jung types.
It's possibly to suspect genetic factor among the ones which make it, based on that identical twins mostly seem to have same or close types. Would be good to give them tests, as similarity of the look may distort VI perceptions.

Well I just Google searched it & Niki & Gabi are identical twins. Gabi's gotten plastic surgery on her face though. She's had her nose & eyes done. So in that case, do they seem like the same type? youtu.be/Toe1YAi--QE

On left has ISFP. On right mb too.

[Olga]

You don't know what is my method and what is Butterfly model. I recorded a video where I compare subtype theories of Gulenko and mine. You are welcome to watch it.
I will post it on the forum.

I'm not sure why you're complaining so much when you literally use a Butterfly to type people (and a model which has nothing to do with Augusta's original concept of socionics).

[BrainlessSquid]

You don't know what is my method and what is Butterfly model. I recorded a video where I compare subtype theories of Gulenko and mine. You are welcome to watch it.
I will post it on the forum.

Hey I tried contacting you without success. How can I contact you to get your typing service?

[Olga]

Hi, Megatrop
Not sure, why you did not manage to reach me. My email is on my website olgatangemann@gmail.com I am not often here but always on FB where I have a few groups like Socionics International and a few small other groups by TPEs. Sometimes I noticed that I do not see straight away the messages from new people. I would suggest to request a friendship and say in a message that you wish to be typed. Or to write to me by email. For all who wishes to be typed I have a link on my website - Information for clients.
http://socionics4you.com/информация-...#1074;?lang=en
I use clients preferences in art and music as well as test results for teaching the method to others. I archive them on the forum. The clients identity is protected by the nickname.
Pictures and videos if the client does not mind to share it I post as well. But if the client wishes to stay fully confidential then no pictures or videos appear anywhere. No information by which you can recognise the client either.

Hey I tried contacting you without success. How can I contact you to get your typing service?

[Sol]

I have a few groups like Socionics International

You are using "typing" by colors. To relate this to Socionics needs be in texts of Jung or Augustinavichiute or to have an experimental proof. Without this what you do is not Socionics and to call it as Socionics is a misleading.

An experimental proof for typing by colors as an aproach may be a match of results with normal dichotomy/8 functional test or when a type was claimed before. You should take a human and offer him to get a type by both these approaches and to see how much higher than accidental chance those results match.
For example. I'm using mostly nonverbal VI. Augustinavichiute texts have this approach in impressions what people of different types give by nonverbal behavior. Then I've did an experiment (with the usage of random people on a forum) which shaw that they match by nonverbal VI method with higher chance than accidentally (~17%) what means such info is useful for a typing.

Gulenko is in similar situation. He uses significantly what is not Socionics and what is baseless fantasies. Besides incorrect usage of "Socionics" for the name of his practice, those doubtful hypotheses are much possibly wrong, what predisposes him to higher number of mistakes and to farther types from correct ones. By usage of strange methods you also should do more mistakes than could by normal methods.
Also you have a problem which I've noticed as not a single case among practicing typology - incorrect understanding of own type, which is not ESI as you think (but seems EIE). With such mistake you may do more typing mistakes when compare people with yourself in common behavior and should not understand correctly IR theory.

If you have an interest to use Socionics - you'd better used normal hypotheses of Socionics. Any principle additions need an experimental proof to trust them. Such would be more use for people and mb for you too.

[Aramas]

You are using "typing" by colors. To relate this to Socionics needs be in texts of Jung or Augustinavichiute or to have an experimental proof. Without this what you do is not Socionics and to call it as Socionics is a misleading.

An experimental proof for typing by colors as an aproach may be a match of results with normal dichotomy/8 functional test or when a type was claimed before. You should take a human and offer him to get a type by both these approaches and to see how much higher than accidental chance those results match.
For example. I'm using mostly nonverbal VI. Augustinavichiute texts have this approach in impressions what people of different types give by nonverbal behavior. Then I've did an experiment (with the usage of random people on a forum) which shaw that they match by nonverbal VI method with higher chance than accidentally (~17%) what means such info is useful for a typing.

Gulenko is in similar situation. He uses significantly what is not Socionics and what is baseless fantasies. Besides incorrect usage of "Socionics" for the name of his practice, those doubtful hypotheses are much possibly wrong, what predisposes him to higher number of mistakes and to farther types from correct ones. By usage of strange methods you also should do more mistakes than could by normal methods.
Also you have a problem which I've noticed as not a single case among practicing typology - incorrect understanding of own type, which is not ESI as you think (but seems EIE). With such mistake you may do more typing mistakes when compare people with yourself in common behavior and should not understand correctly IR theory.

If you have an interest to use Socionics - you'd better used normal hypotheses of Socionics. Any principle additions need an experimental proof to trust them. Such would be more use for people and mb for you too.

Experimental proof doesn't exist for the basis of jungian typology, let alone Socionics.

[Olga]

Sol, you clearly did not read my book. I would say you talk nonsense and I do not even wish to go deep into it because the understanding is out of reach.
I use different instruments to get an objective picture of the type. My approach is flexible (usage of different instruments is convenient depending on circumstances) and holistic.
I recommend to other socionists not to change the basic theory but look and study different preferences (art, music etc) which can expand our abilities to read the type by preferences. this is the way to progress.
Study of the brain maybe useful too but the type has 2 components - physical and psychological content. We cannot replace one for another. My approach to study the type is psychophysiological, similar to temperaments but a higher level of differentiation because I analyse subconscious preferences. I combine qualitative and quantitative approach like tests and psychoanalysis. I hope to publish the book in English this year and open the online course. The necessary condition for the acceptance to the course will be type identification.

[ooo]

updated
@The Exception EIE
@shotgunfingers LSI-H
@Ebony IEI-C
@Suspiria EIE-C
@Chakram LSI-N
@Paranoia Agent ILI-C
@thegreenfaerie LSI-H
@Uncle Ave LSI-C
@aster IEI-N
@justalitnerdxx IEI-H
@Kiana SEE-N
@aster's friend SLE
@Northstar SLE-C
@Varlawend ILI
@uniden ILI
@Desert Financial ILI
@Viktor SLE-H
@shotgun's friend EIE
@megedy IEI-C
@Sachmet LII
@ouronis ILE N-H
@Peteronfire LSI

guys from yt channel:

Kristin LSI
Nathan ILI
Kurtis SEE
Drew LSI
Shane SLE
Eskil SLE

19 betas out of 28...

sorry if i omitted or repeated someone

[squark]

19 betas out of 28...

I think he mistyped The Exception. Imo delta NF rather than beta. I don't know everyone on the list, but I'm sure there are other mistypings because nobody gets everything right. Even when they know socionics as well as Gulenko. Because even something as simple as a translation error can drastically change someone's interpretation. He probably did get a majority right, but there will always be mistypings.

There are a few different reasons that it might skew towards beta even if every typing was right (which is near impossible) - betas might be more inclined to seek out his typing services, or there might be more betas on this forum. And then translation issues might be making people come across differently, watching other people's videos and being influenced by their answers and probably other stuff I didn't consider could lead to typing problems.

I need to look at what criteria he's using for rationality/irrationality though, because DCNH messes with how that comes across and I want to see how he's separating the two. Actually, I'm kind of curious how he'd type me, and I should probably try to forget about socionics as much as possible if I want a more accurate opinion that isn't colored by my own bias quite as much if I decide to do it.

[ooo]

I think he mistyped The Exception. Imo delta NF rather than beta. I don't know everyone on the list, but I'm sure there are other mistypings because nobody gets everything right. Even when they know socionics as well as Gulenko. Because even something as simple as a translation error can drastically change someone's interpretation. He probably did get a majority right, but there will always be mistypings.

There are a few different reasons that it might skew towards beta even if every typing was right (which is near impossible) - betas might be more inclined to seek out his typing services, or there might be more betas on this forum. And then translation issues might be making people come across differently, watching other people's videos and being influenced by their answers and probably other stuff I didn't consider could lead to typing problems.

I need to look at what criteria he's using for rationality/irrationality though, because DCNH messes with how that comes across and I want to see how he's separating the two. ctually, I'm kind of curious how he'd type me, and I should probably try to forget about socionics as much as possible if I want a more accurate opinion that isn't colored by my own bias quite as much if I decide to do it.

totally. i think it's fair to consider 5-6 mistypings in this list, due to a probability of success of 80% circa (which would be a very good one all things -translations, cultures, bias, chance- considered).

i think that at this point it's quite obvious that he can't really distinguish Delta, it was already apparent by his site, he listed fewer Deltas than any other quadras, but that's very strange for someone with his experience and with his age, can't he really think of any more famous Deltas than the 4-5 examples he displayed per type? and why are all the other quadras instead displaying a dozen examples per type? it's just suspicious.

unfortunately this seemingly little bias has the potential to skew all the other "correct typings".

now, it's really noteworthy that out of 28 or so people there are no deltas at all, considering some of them are considered among the most frequent types in the population by socionics statistics (LSE and INFJ in particular)...

just pondering~

[The Reality Denialist]

Gulenko seems to think that deltas rarely get famous. So that. It is like it determines it.

Among deltas only few alphas and ESI's should be expected to be on display.

[mfckrz]

19 betas out of 28...

Betas getting overtyped in Gulenkonics too?

[Ave]

updated
@The Exception EIE
@shotgunfingers LSI-H
@Ebony IEI-C
@Suspiria EIE-C
@Chakram LSI-N
@Paranoia Agent ILI-C
@thegreenfaerie LSI-H
@Uncle Ave LSI-C
@aster IEI-N
@justalitnerdxx IEI-H
@Kiana SEE-N
@aster's friend SLE
@Northstar SLE-C
@Varlawend ILI
@uniden ILI
@Desert Financial ILI
@Viktor SLE-H
@shotgun's friend EIE
@megedy IEI-C
@Sachmet LII
@ouronis ILE N-H
@Peteronfire LSI

guys from yt channel:

Kristin LSI
Nathan ILI
Kurtis SEE
Drew LSI
Shane SLE
Eskil SLE

19 betas out of 28...

sorry if i omitted or repeated someone

I don't think it's fair to count Aster's friend and Shotgun's friend since they weren't officially typed, but while we're at it, he typed my "friend" as IEE.

[DEAD]

totally. i think it's fair to consider 5-6 mistypings in this list, due to a probability of success of 80% circa (which would be a very good one all things -translations, cultures, bias, chance- considered).

i think that at this point it's quite obvious that he can't really distinguish Delta, it was already apparent by his site, he listed fewer Deltas than any other quadras, but that's very strange for someone with his experience and with his age, can't he really think of any more famous Deltas than the 4-5 examples he displayed per type? and why are all the other quadras instead displaying a dozen examples per type? it's just suspicious.

unfortunately this seemingly little bias has the potential to skew all the other "correct typings".

now, it's really noteworthy that out of 28 or so people there are no deltas at all, considering some of them are considered among the most frequent types in the population by socionics statistics (LSE and INFJ in particular)...

just pondering~

That's another good reason why I don't want to spend money on Gulenko. If you're spending that much money on a service like that, I'd genuinely expect the success ratio to be 98% or higher. What's the point in even spending all that money on a "learning experience" like that when you're also paying for the bias? There are much cheaper ways to get it. And whatever formula Gulenko is using to type people, it musn't be that effective if it keeps getting lost in translation and he can't distinguish people from Delta well. Most people are just paying for the brand and bragging rights at this point: "I got typed by Big Daddy G, therefore I'm superior than you, cheap cretin!" I also think that there's a sort of "placebo" effect going on there too. It's like "I paid good money for this typing, therefore Gulenko IS RIGHT and I AM X type". But Gulenko is just one man, and one opinion. You need to do the research for yourself and have an idea and think for yourself, not just take everyone's opinion as the truth.

[necrosebud]

Maybe someone should ask the typing percentage of each type (for those he has already typed - overall). If he’s willing to reveal it.

[Still Alive]

i think that at this point it's quite obvious that he can't really distinguish Delta, it was already apparent by his site, he listed fewer Deltas than any other quadras, but that's very strange for someone with his experience and with his age, can't he really think of any more famous Deltas than the 4-5 examples he displayed per type? and why are all the other quadras instead displaying a dozen examples per type? it's just suspicious.

unfortunately this seemingly little bias has the potential to skew all the other "correct typings".

now, it's really noteworthy that out of 28 or so people there are no deltas at all, considering some of them are considered among the most frequent types in the population by socionics statistics (LSE and INFJ in particular)...

I think your claim that he can't distinguish delta types is very arrogant considering that he has written pretty impressive type descriptions for them.

I'm not even sure if he focuses all that much on his gallery. I got the impression from some conversations with his team that they are mostly responsible for the typings, but I could be wrong. his research definitely focuses on other aspects than celebrity typings. russia/ukraine is more influenced by beta values, and considering that many examples in his gallery are russians, it could just be that it's more difficult to find famous delta examples in their culture. delta is also a quadra that prefers understatement. they simply don't push themselves in the spotlight so everyone can see them. it could also be that he just doesn't find famous deltas all that interesting to type. I certainly don't enjoy watching long videos of SLI's to figure out their type because I find them very uninteresting because of the ITR dynamic. a lot of them have a comfortable technical job and an allotment garden. that's not very interesting to me.

I'm working on my own gallery of types and here's the current distribution:

alpha - 117 examples
beta - 379
gamma - 258
delta - 123

I have 174 IEI examples, and 12 for SLI. the former simply interests me more.

I don't trust any statistics on types. there's barely any agreement here on even the most obvious types and we have a population of 7.6 billion people. how would you even guess the distributions of types? socionics is a field that mostly attracts Ti valuing types, because gamma and delta care about objective knowledge. they need some kind of objective proof so they can trust the theory, which socionics currently cannot provide. Ni is also the function that has a huge interest in psychology. it's the desire to look into someones soul. is it really that surprising that the majority of people who find socionics intersting are beta NF?

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Some forum demographics relating to type from 2014:

https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1014765

Of course 6 years is a long time in Socionics.


I recently read a study that analysed the tweets of tens of thousands of famous people on Twitter for Big Five traits, and the traits of Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Openness to Experience were especially common, which furthers the general impression that famous people are especially likely to be EIE and not SLI or SEI, and that IEE should theoretically be especially common also.

edit this is one study I did read, but probably not the primary one I'm thinking of. I'd have bookmarked it if it had any predicted scores for famous people: https://link.springer.com/article/10...646-017-0408-8

[Still Alive]

Some forrum demographics relating to type from 2014:

https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1014765

Of course 6 years is a long time in Socionics.


I recently read a study that analysed the tweets of tens of thousands of famous people on Twitter for Big Five traits, and the traits of Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Openness to Experience were especially common, which furthers the general impression that famous people are especially likely to be EIE and not SLI or SEI, and that IEE should theoretically be especially common also.

yeah IEE is the only delta type that I could see being famous and enjoying it. I think many talkshow hosts have this type. I think Ne+Fi is a combo that works very well for this type of profession. the ability to generate many conversational topics and a genuine interest in people and their lives.

[Sayonara]

So, I did not think I would be posting here again. However, after talking to professionals and testing IR theory. I should state that it turns out Gulenko did type me correctly. A certain individual around here really is my Dual. So, while a lot of people can't fathom his typings, his methods, and maybe some aren't right, it does work for some of us. I've had people harass me, and try to pump me for all kinds of information in relation to how he types. When I explain it, they usually can't comprehend it. I have to say the Socionics community is one of the worst I've ever dealt with. To people considering getting a Gulenko typing, just try it, if it works for you - great. Take it and get back to business.

[ooo]

@Adios are u in the above list by chance?

[ooo]

I think your claim that he can't distinguish delta types is very arrogant considering that he has written pretty impressive type descriptions for them.

I'm not even sure if he focuses all that much on his gallery. I got the impression from some conversations with his team that they are mostly responsible for the typings, but I could be wrong. his research definitely focuses on other aspects than celebrity typings. russia/ukraine is more influenced by beta values, and considering that many examples in his gallery are russians, it could just be that it's more difficult to find famous delta examples in their culture. delta is also a quadra that prefers understatement. they simply don't push themselves in the spotlight so everyone can see them. it could also be that he just doesn't find famous deltas all that interesting to type. I certainly don't enjoy watching long videos of SLI's to figure out their type because I find them very uninteresting because of the ITR dynamic. a lot of them have a comfortable technical job and an allotment garden. that's not very interesting to me.

I'm working on my own gallery of types and here's the current distribution:

alpha - 117 examples
beta - 379
gamma - 258
delta - 123

I have 174 IEI examples, and 12 for SLI. the former simply interests me more.

I don't trust any statistics on types. there's barely any agreement here on even the most obvious types and we have a population of 7.6 billion people. how would you even guess the distributions of types? socionics is a field that mostly attracts Ti valuing types, because gamma and delta care about objective knowledge. they need some kind of objective proof so they can trust the theory, which socionics currently cannot provide. Ni is also the function that has a huge interest in psychology. it's the desire to look into someones soul. is it really that surprising that the majority of people who find socionics intersting are beta NF?

u realize ure not gulenko and that "i prefer other types", or " deltas are rare among public figures" or "no deltas in russia" are just excuses and that a classifying rigorous method shouldnt appeal to any of them?

[qaz00]

I'm working on my own gallery of types and here's the current distribution:

alpha - 117 examples
beta - 379
gamma - 258
delta - 123

I have 174 IEI examples, and 12 for SLI. the former simply interests me more.

I don't know what are your goals that made you want to make your gallery, but for sure it's important to you, judging by how much effort you put in it. If you want it to be high quality and useful I would recommend you to focus on the correct balance between types, even if some types are less interesting to you. Some examples of gallery's practical application where your approach can be a problem:

1. Gallery as a tool to teach people socionics. When you add so many IEIs to your gallery and so few SLIs people may think the former type is very common in society and the latter very rare. They won't be aware of your way of creating it and can make wrong conclusions about socionics. Also, more examples of a type mean more information to learn about a type. While 12 SLIs is enough to give an idea what this type is about, it's certainly not enough to understand this type in depth (differences between subtypes, characteristic behaviors in different gender/age/occupation etc.). If you decide to look at possible SLIs and type another 12 of them you would get two times more examples of this type, two times more info, while typing another IEIs that you already have a lot of would be much less significant, a waste of time in comparison.

2. Gallery as a data source for research. There are many different ways in which a well-made list of typed people may be used for analysis, it's a promising direction to help improve socionics (looking for correlations of traits, AI facial recognition etc). I don't think I have to explain why it's important to have many examples of all types to make it work. I'm working on the consensus list for this reason and I need quality typings of all types so the quality of what you do may also influence socionics development in the future in some way.

3. Gallery as a way to make money. You're knowledgeable in socionics, so you can try to find ways to profit from it, Gulenko is quite successful with his typing services, you may find your own niche too. In this case a well-made gallery with many examples of all types would attract more people to you as a professional, improve your reputation.

4. Gallery as a self-development tool. Maybe you're doing it mostly for yourself and you share the gallery because it's not much work to do and someone using it is a nice side effect. When you try to type people you gain experience in socionics, looking at a whole list of previously typed people is great to spot some traits typical to a type that you could miss just by typing someone and forgetting about it. IEIs are more interesting to you, you watch more examples of them and learn more about them, your understanding of this type is much better than your understanding of SLIs because of it. Maybe it's ok for finding compatible friends (why IEI instead of ESE then though...) but in real life situations we interact with all types and equal knowledge about them helps to have good relations with people in general. You can say SLIs are not interesting and avoid them but maybe one day an SLI client shows up in your company interested in your product, you fail to encourage him to purchase it because you don't have enough experience with this type.

[Still Alive]

I don't know what are your goals that made you want to make your gallery, but for sure it's important to you, judging by how much effort you put in it. If you want it to be high quality and useful I would recommend you to focus on the correct balance between types, even if some types are less interesting to you. Some examples of gallery's practical application where your approach can be a problem:

1. Gallery as a tool to teach people socionics. When you add so many IEIs to your gallery and so few SLIs people may think the former type is very common in society and the latter very rare. They won't be aware of your way of creating it and can make wrong conclusions about socionics. Also, more examples of a type mean more information to learn about a type. While 12 SLIs is enough to give an idea what this type is about, it's certainly not enough to understand this type in depth (differences between subtypes, characteristic behaviors in different gender/age/occupation etc.). If you decide to look at possible SLIs and type another 12 of them you would get two times more examples of this type, two times more info, while typing another IEIs that you already have a lot of would be much less significant, a waste of time in comparison.

2. Gallery as a data source for research. There are many different ways in which a well-made list of typed people may be used for analysis, it's a promising direction to help improve socionics (looking for correlations of traits, AI facial recognition etc). I don't think I have to explain why it's important to have many examples of all types to make it work. I'm working on the consensus list for this reason and I need quality typings of all types so the quality of what you do may also influence socionics development in the future in some way.

3. Gallery as a way to make money. You're knowledgeable in socionics, so you can try to find ways to profit from it, Gulenko is quite successful with his typing services, you may find your own niche too. In this case a well-made gallery with many examples of all types would attract more people to you as a professional, improve your reputation.

4. Gallery as a self-development tool. Maybe you're doing it mostly for yourself and you share the gallery because it's not much work to do and someone using it is a nice side effect. When you try to type people you gain experience in socionics, looking at a whole list of previously typed people is great to spot some traits typical to a type that you could miss just by typing someone and forgetting about it. IEIs are more interesting to you, you watch more examples of them and learn more about them, your understanding of this type is much better than your understanding of SLIs because of it. Maybe it's ok for finding compatible friends (why IEI instead of ESE then though...) but in real life situations we interact with all types and equal knowledge about them helps to have good relations with people in general. You can say SLIs are not interesting and avoid them but maybe one day an SLI client shows up in your company interested in your product, you fail to encourage him to purchase it because you don't have enough experience with this type.

all the points you are making are very good, so thanks for your answer. I've actuallly showed my website to an SLI angel investor that I've met at the factory in berlin around 2 years ago, but he didn't like that my website didn't have any footnotes and quotations (they are very common for scientific texts in germany). during my interaction, I got the feeling that his thinking was too grounded for me, so I stopped the contact after our conversation. I work with many SLI at my job, I think I have a good idea about this type, but they simply are very difficult to type for an intuitive person, and they lack the ambition to really get themselves out there and become visible.

here's an example of a german SLI politician. he talks a bit about his model railroad that he has build over the years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz9nmRIuEZw

as an intuitive, it's pretty hard for me to watch. I can't focus on these realistic aspects for long without getting a slight headache. I'm thinking about hiring an ILI or a similar type to SLI in the future who might find this content more interesting and could help me find more type examples. for now I'm fine with all the beta NF typings I've made so far, since I consider them the main target group for the theory.

I do think about going to google or other companies in the future to present my website in some way and maybe build a database of types with people who aren't celebrities. I have some options that I want to consider, but I am also heavily invested in crypto and blockchain projects so that might be my priority for the next few years. I don't think I ever want to make money from socionics since my idealism tells me that all the knowledge should be available for free.