Let's Type Celebrities!

Let's Type Celebrities!

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 1 of 51 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 501
Thank Tree290Thanks

This is a discussion on Let's Type Celebrities! within the Socionics Forum forums, part of the Personality Type Forums category; Haven't found Socionics thread for this. Do we have one? I've seen several topics on celebrities scattered here and there ...

  1. #1

    Let's Type Celebrities!

    Haven't found Socionics thread for this. Do we have one? I've seen several topics on celebrities scattered here and there over subforum, so this can become a place for general discussion on celebrities and other prominent people types.

    For a start - I think Grace Kelly is Si base type and probably Delta.

    Word Dispenser and fair phantom thanked this post.



  2. #2

    So here is Adam Savage, one of the guys from mythbusters. He is ILE. I think I have seen some of his Si tendencies get a more distinct role in his personality morso later in his life.


    Also his CO-worker Jamie Hyneman I suggest LIE for him. Ye, he do not look like an extrovert in the traditional terms. He is abit quiet next to Adam. But LIE make alot more sense to me then any other type.
    Attached Images
    Last edited by Captain Mclain; 10-04-2015 at 05:46 AM.

  3. #3

    C.S Lewis ? I've just started reading his Narnia books. Despite the controversy of his treatment of Susan in the books, I think that he may be an Ne user, due to the many sources he derived inspiration from, and welded together in his books. At least thusfar. I wouldn't be surprised if he were an EII.

    Also Tolkien. I haven't read his books yet, but I've heard him being typed as an LII. The cheery subdued nature of his books, and of what I've heard in terms of the length, research, and painstaking detail to create this world, leads me to believe that this is true.

    Ironically, James Dashner (The author of the one series I can say I actually disliked immensely due to poor writing), writes his characters very Beta/Gamma. But, he himself, in interviews, appears to be a fairly strong Delta.

    Terry Brooks appears strongly Delta to me, either LSE or SLI. (Although @Entropic purported that he must be an Ni-user). If he is, then I would say he would have to be an LSI. Especially based on the talk I saw him give about Elves. And having been reading quite a lot of his books this year, I would say that he is unusually strong, and seems to value Si too much, to be an Ni-user. I may be incorrect, of course.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4

    Quote Originally Posted by Word Dispenser View Post
    C.S Lewis ? I've just started reading his Narnia books. Despite the controversy of his treatment of Susan in the books, I think that he may be an Ne user, due to the many sources he derived inspiration from, and welded together in his books. At least thusfar. I wouldn't be surprised if he were an EII.

    Also Tolkien. I haven't read his books yet, but I've heard him being typed as an LII. The cheery subdued nature of his books, and of what I've heard in terms of the length, research, and painstaking detail to create this world, leads me to believe that this is true.

    Ironically, James Dashner (The author of the one series I can say I actually disliked immensely due to poor writing), writes his characters very Beta/Gamma. But, he himself, in interviews, appears to be a fairly strong Delta.

    Terry Brooks appears strongly Delta to me, either LSE or SLI. (Although @Entropic purported that he must be an Ni-user). If he is, then I would say he would have to be an LSI. Especially based on the talk I saw him give about Elves. And having been reading quite a lot of his books this year, I would say that he is unusually strong, and seems to value Si too much, to be an Ni-user. I may be incorrect, of course.
    CS Lewis knows what time is.

    I remember reading somewhere that Ni types come to religion later in life. That is Lewis. I find it hard to believe he is a Fi dom.



    The guy doesn't seem Ne to me. He blazes to his point.

    “Here I am going to say something which may come as a bit of a shock. God doesn't necessarily want us to be happy. He wants us to be lovable. Worthy of love. Able to be loved by Him. We don't start off being all that lovable, if we're honest. What makes people hard to love? Isn't it what is commonly called selfishness? Selfish people are hard to love because so little love comes out of them."

    “To put it another way, pain is God's megaphone to rouse a deaf world. Why must it be pain? Why can't he rouse us more gently, with violins or laughter? Because the dream from which we must be wakened, is the dream that all is well."

    I was taught at school, when I had done a sum, to "prove my answer." The proof or verification of my Christian answer to the cosmic sum is this. When I accept Theology I may find difficulties, at this point or that, in harmonising it with some particular truths which are embedded in the mythical cosmology derived from science. But I can get in, or allow for, science as a whole. Granted that Reason is prior to matter and that the light of that primal Reason illuminates finite minds, I can understand how men should come, by observation and inference, to know a lot about the universe they live in. If, on the other hand, I swallow the scientific cosmology as a whole, then not only can I not fit in Christianity, but I cannot even fit in science. If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees. And this is to me the final test. This is how I distinguish dreaming and waking. When I am awake I can, in some degree, account for and study my dream. The dragon that pursued me last night can be fitted into my waking world. I know that there are such things as dreams: I know that I had eaten an indigestible dinner: I know that a man of my reading might be expected to dream of dragons. But while in the nightmare I could not have fitted in my waking experience. The waking world is judged more real because it can thus contain the dreaming world: the dreaming world is judged less real because it cannot contain the waking one. For the same reason I am certain that in passing from the scientific point of view to the theological, I have passed from dream to waking. Christian theology can fit in science, art, morality, and the sub-Christian religions. The scientific point of view cannot fit in any of these things, not even science itself. I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else
    Word Dispenser, angelcat and Fluffy Goblin thanked this post.

  6. #5

    Quote Originally Posted by Word Dispenser View Post
    C.S Lewis ? I've just started reading his Narnia books. Despite the controversy of his treatment of Susan in the books, I think that he may be an Ne user, due to the many sources he derived inspiration from, and welded together in his books. At least thusfar. I wouldn't be surprised if he were an EII.

    Also Tolkien. I haven't read his books yet, but I've heard him being typed as an LII. The cheery subdued nature of his books, and of what I've heard in terms of the length, research, and painstaking detail to create this world, leads me to believe that this is true.
    I actually thought quite different types for them. Lewis' Narnia story was good, but too childish and I didn't like how obviously it was used to promote Christian ideas. It kind of diminished the story for me. Not because I don't like those ideas, not at all, but because such straightforward approach ruins "reality" of the story for me. I also tried to read some of his philosophical/symbolical/allegorical (or whatever they were) non-fiction works to only got tangled in his word-streams. Definitely not my cup of tea. I got the impression he is Ti (and maybe Ni?) valuer.

    Tolkien on the other hand was very easy and comfortable to read. Everything about style and pace just clicked naturally. I didn't find his books cheery. Hobbit was really light reading because of its fairy-tale unpretentious style, but LOTR or Silmarillion are pretty heavy books in terms of mood and doesn't typically resemble something Alpha would write. I think there's even possibility of him being Si base from Delta, because of how much time he dedicated to building the world that would work on virtually all levels, including history, cultures, languages, nations, geography, traditions. As Tolkien wrote - it's easy to imagine a green sun, but to make a world inside which the green sun will be credible will require labour, thought and skill. Or something along those lines. Don't remember the quote verbatim. Anyway, I thought Si and Fi in some order.

    But I know very little about both authors as people beyond their works so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  7. #6

    Quote Originally Posted by To_august View Post
    I actually thought quite different types for them. Lewis' Narnia story was good, but too childish and I didn't like how obviously it was used to promote Christian ideas. It kind of diminished the story for me. Not because I don't like those ideas, not at all, but because such straightforward approach ruins "reality" of the story for me. I also tried to read some of his philosophical/symbolical/allegorical (or whatever they were) non-fiction works to only got tangled in his word-streams. Definitely not my cup of tea. I got the impression he is Ti (and maybe Ni?) valuer.

    Tolkien on the other hand was very easy and comfortable to read. Everything about style and pace just clicked naturally. I didn't find his books cheery. Hobbit was really light reading because of its fairy-tale unpretentious style, but LOTR or Silmarillion are pretty heavy books in terms of mood and doesn't typically resemble something Alpha would write. I think there's even possibility of him being Si base from Delta, because of how much time he dedicated to building the world that would work on virtually all levels, including history, cultures, languages, nations, geography, traditions. As Tolkien wrote - it's easy to imagine a green sun, but to make a world inside which the green sun will be credible will require labour, thought and skill. Or something along those lines. Don't remember the quote verbatim. Anyway, I thought Si and Fi in some order.

    But I know very little about both authors as people beyond their works so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    I think anyone that says that "reason is prior to matter" has to be a Ni or Ti dom. lol.

    I saw Hegel typed as EIE, which threw me off... but actually makes sense.

    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...riedrich-Hegel
    To_august thanked this post.

  8. #7

    Amongst contemporary fantasy-authors, I think Patrick Rothfuss, Robin Hobb and Neil Gaiman are all EII, and I lean towards Gamma NT for George R.R. Martin.

    Anyone able to help me with typing Doug Stanhope?


    Seems Gamma, but that's as far as I've got.
    Last edited by Verity; 10-04-2015 at 12:09 PM.

  9. #8

    George Martin's books would be so much better if he didn't spend so much time trailing off on the intricate details of what's on everybodies plate. Or mentioning some guys three brothers that have no relevance to anything.

    I've seen it argued that he's an ILI.

  10. #9
    IEE

    Mark Twain-IEE.

    Does it really need an explanation?
    Felipe thanked this post.

  11. #10

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Wanderer View Post
    George Martin's books would be so much better if he didn't spend so much time trailing off on the intricate details of what's on everybodies plate. Or mentioning some guys three brothers that have no relevance to anything.

    I've seen it argued that he's an ILI.
    ILI seems very plausible. It's funny, I like Martin because he excels at political drama on a grand scale, but his prose is pretty shitty. He's the opposite of authors like Robin Hobb or Mervyn Peake in that regard.


     
Page 1 of 51 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Type the Following Celebrities.......
    By yara in forum Guess the type
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 05-31-2017, 10:29 PM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 06-23-2014, 12:10 PM
  3. Can you please type these celebrities?
    By chrissto in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-27-2014, 03:22 AM
  4. Can you please type these celebrities?
    By chrissto in forum Guess the type
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-27-2014, 03:22 AM
  5. Celebrities - etc for your MBTI type
    By minkaybell in forum Myers Briggs Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-17-2011, 08:32 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:14 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0