Bill Cosby

[Rick]

This is hopeless, people. Arguing V.I. without referring to functions and the person's actual behavior, personality, etc. is always fruitless unless people come from the same V.I. paradigm.

[Gilly]

That's true enough. However, my system has about a 90% correlation with actual type (as determined by both myself and others) in my experience, so I tend to think it's pretty dead-on

[Phaedrus]

Not so sure that's an ENFp either...

The person in the pictures is definitely an ENFp. I have worked with her for about 6 months in the past. When I first met her she immediately struck me as a clear ENFp, and she has since then shown every typical sign of being an ENFp and no sign of not being an ENFp. Besides that she has tested as an ENFP in MBTI tests, and she is (among some other things) a psychologist and a licensed MBTI practitioner.

[Slacker]

Gilly Gilly Gilly . . .

First of all, if your system is 90% right, it isn't head on.

Secondly, there is NO WAY ON EARTH to show that it's actually 90% right.

VI SUCKS. I so wish people would stop relying on VI over behavior and relationships around here.

[Gilly]

Well, the pictures aren't great, so I'm not going to insist on anything.

[Rick]

she has since then shown every typical sign of being an ENFp

Please specify (being ILI, you should enjoy the task).

[Gilly]

Gilly Gilly Gilly . . .

First of all, if your system is 90% right, it isn't head on.

Secondly, there is NO WAY ON EARTH to show that it's actually 90% right.

VI SUCKS. I so wish people would stop relying on VI over behavior and relationships around here.

The problem is that we can't trust people to accurately represent themselves in any way BUT pictures, so relying on relationships and descriptions that they describe themselves isn't really any way to go about typing either.

And I know there's no way to be SURE of the percentage, but it's a pretty good bet when people who actually understand the system agree with my VIs almost every single time.

[Slacker]

Yeah but you're talking about celebrities now - people about whom there are tons of third-person articles.

[Slacker]

And even with people here who aren't celebrities, you can tell a lot about how they describe themselves and others, like what is important to them, what their motivations are, etc.

Also, I don't see how me describing someone I know is less reliable than someone else looking at a photo of that person. Whom they don't know.

Everyone who VIs me says I'm INFj. Which is close. And I can see VI getting people in the ballpark. But that's it.

[Rick]

Whoopie! I feel solidarity with Slacker Mom!

[Expat]

I have removed the heated discussion and unlocked it, in case anyone wishes to continue --

[Rocky]

Why'd you delete so much? I still want to know what posts from smilex phaedrus was talking about.

[Expat]

These, that nifweed quoted elsewhere, from elsewhere:

the argument which smilingeyes presented in some other thread brought up some interesting points which should be considered, but shouldn't necessarily be considered as definitive proof to state that phaedrus is INTp.

smilex posts on the matter:

Ah, another discussion turned into Phaedrus' type. Rick's observations about the difference between Jonathan and Phaedrus in my opinion hold true. Unfortunately Rick is also applying the standards of accepting Te into people who are using creating Te. The very same argument in my opinion is clear evidence to Phaedrus actually being INTp and Jonathan perhaps not (or at least a very intuitive one). INTps type as obstinate and creation-creating. The INTP version of Te doesn't really discuss anything with anyone. It's as much a fanatic's function as accepting Fe, just much more precise. Compare Phaedrus with Cone or Rocky, there's the similarity. The reason INTp's are objective instead of subjective is not that they are external-fact-oriented as the ENTjs but because they are drawn to viewpoints that carry merit by themselves instead of being supported by the rhetoric power and status of the person. Thinking style INTps are fanatics of reason and common sense, but still fanatics. I find Expat's suggestion number 3 to be the sensible opinion on the matter. The habit of stubbornly and strictly repeating one's personal opinions despite all opposition is a feature of all thinking style IxTxs. For some reason people just never seem to get this about the INTps.

The current professor of my field in the university which I serve is one of these thinking INTps. He's a man with a great wealth of information about the subject, but most notably unwilling to listen to any arguments by other people. He makes generally good decisions but when he makes bad ones there's no way to prove him wrong. He's a stickler for accepted manner and ritual yet he can ignore select parts of protocol by the definition that his way is always right anyway. He is a humble man with no great wish for power and no fancy visions, yet everything he does is done with clarity and quality. His married to an almost 10 year older ESFp woman and together they pretty much dominate the current faculty. Of the people employed in the faculty the man is involved in every part of the work currently done in the field and he remains the only one of the senior faculty members who is not using his knowledge and skills in making extra money in the private sector. A frugal type very similar to Warren Buffet who Rick has typed INTp (who has not made his money through great vision but through consistency and clarity of purpose), akin to what IxTjs are more renowned for.

Edit addition:
The existence of people like this was also the point for which I contested Expat's typing of Cato the elder in a private conversation. It was an argument that I understood to be about essentially this same subject, whether there are thinking IPs with extremely firm opinions for which they are ready to do pretty much anything. I argued for Cato being an example of these IxTps, more probably ISTp than INTp though.

I am prepared to change my mind about being the intuitive subtype, but in that case I think the type descriptions of the logical subtype of INTp are misleading.

(yes, some of them are, at least if you've been reading gulenko's. But that's actually quite the fricking funny since this right here is the most intuitive message I've seen you write in ages. Hope people finally see the Ni, direct application of sensible observational methodology, not logical methodology)

If you remember, Smilex, you once said that I was taking the Fe side in a discussion I had with Transigent on this forum, which you saw as an indication that it was possible to see me as an INFp or an INTp, but in either case with a strong Ni.

I don't actually remember that occasion, but I'm sure it happened. It would be interesting to review it and see what it was about. Either 1. something in your behaviour has changed (and it has to some minor extent), or 2. I myself at that point had a worse understanding of the IP versions of Fe and Te (which I did). Now I don't actually think that reviewing the matter would prove anything but you are indeed showing Ni in the way you make this observation. The matter is such that it would have no Ne value, because Ne would make a direct observation of the whole of the matter and generally ignore little fucked up details such as this, whereas you use this fact as a guidepost in your intuitive map (in general, since there's no 100% in socionics)...

Also, Sergei Ganin once suggested INFp as a possibility, probably because of my tendency to write more in Jonathan's diplomatic style.

Hm, could be. My astrologist said that the number 25 and a red door are very important to me this week.

My posts have probably become more harsh and less Fe since then (I have posted about a year now, if my about 150 posts on SG's forum are included). My point is that at least those earlier posts of mine might suggest the intuitive subtype of INTp, since I think that I know for certain that I am not an INFp (at least not more than occasionally, if I would accept your view on changing types). My readiness to criticize others would indicate Ni+, wouldn't it?

Well, mm, yeah, and more than a bit of Te. But I hate using the + sign since actually concrete intuition is the descending version of intuition. Fucked up, like everything in the standard socionic notation. (You could also go for the easier goal and point out that he who criticizes the most is the Critic)

Even if I tend to agree with you that my posts are probably full of Te, it could be to the benefit of all of us if we could try to show clear examples of that can be compared with clear examples of . Earlier today I found what I think could be a good exemple of (but I'm not sure) in a couple of UDP II's posts.

Again, very intuitive, and agreeable to me. Not sure if it'll do anyone any good though. Let's see.

(Now what people should take a note a note of is the playing with whatif -scenarios, the direct opposite of analyzing observations, a hallmark signature of ta-da a narrator type).

Anyway, your quote was okay. Sorry I'm too exhausted to look for candy for people. But what people should look for, is butting in on conversations with little explanation. That's always a good hint that we're dealing with an extravert function. Try Cone's posts. He can be quite the biting fellow when he wants to, or maybe Niffweed. For EJ Te, try anything by Expat, he's the king of it. There was also a guy called Earl a long long time ago.

But anyway, I'm exhausted. And it's not my fight anyway. I'm going to butt out of this conversation. And I need to take a nap.

Oh, by the way, thanks for catching an actual possible error of mine. I get kicks when someone pwns me legitly.

EDIT: The previous message was written under conditions of hypoglycemia and insomnia and should be regarded as such. The opinions described may or may not describe the actual firm opinions of the party in question. All due caution should be given. The message is not further edited for matters of historical accuracy and authenticity.

it is worth mentioning that most of smilex's arguments seem to be based on somewhat different interpretations of the functions than are often held. for example, his descriptions of Te discussion style might be somewhat different from those on the article on rick's site publicizing all of the functions. rick seems to be using a style more akin to what is printed in that article, and one which seems like a very valid argument to me, and one which phaedrus has never really responded to (i assume he would discredit it as one piece of evidence in the face of his self-proclaimed insurmountable evidence in the contrary).

[silke]

i thought ESFj.

Had some similar thoughts to this. Si/Ne quadrant rational.

[flames]

ESE

[squark]

Si/Ne quadrant rational.

Agree.

[Nanooka]

Really straightforward ESE, in my opinion. He has a constantly "on" effusive Fe, a firm EJ-ish bearing, and by all accounts is a chronic workaholic. In his youth he was also an extremely physical person. A multisport athlete (football, baseball, basketball, and track all at once), who had no time for like anything else because he also needed top grades to get out of his bad circumstances growing up, but was somehow also the popular class clown despite this.

[darya]

Creeptastic ESE.

[The Reality Denialist]

I think someone should change Hugo to Cosby.
ESE.

[Boris78]

Hi! I think Bill Cosby type is : ENTJ-L

Myers-Briggs : ENTJ-L (Limbic, not Calm). Estimated Profile : (E) 67,5% (N) 67,5% (T) 55% (J) 73,75%

Big Five/OCEAN : SLOEI

Enneagram: 3w4(sw2w3) Enneatype 3 - Level 5

Socionics : LIE

Disc : (I) Influencial

Don Riso Subtype : The Image-Conscious Pragmatist