Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 518 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,087 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,503 Posts
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.
 

Attachments

·
Spotlight March 2016
Joined
·
8,193 Posts
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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,000 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,087 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
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)_/¯
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,000 Posts
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/showthread.php/20280-Georg-Wilhelm-Friedrich-Hegel
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
490 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,167 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
490 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,511 Posts
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.
He could be an LSE, based on the interview I watched. I'm mostly going off the stories he's written that I've read, but it was many years ago since I read those books.

Doug Stanhope is a beta ST. I think LSI.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
490 Posts
I'm interested in knowing Joseph Campbell's and Kurt Vonnegut's respective types.
Campbell seems like the ultimate Ni-base, but I have trouble deciding if he's ILI or IEI, leaning towards IEI due to the IEI's characteristic poetic language. Vonnegut on the other hand nearly seems like an Ne-base, but I don't see Ji PoLR...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,167 Posts
With thanks to @Entropic and @Verglas for suggestions and helping with the typing.

Alpha
ILE:
Stephen Colbert
Albert Einstein
Barack Obama
Jon Stewart

SEI:
Angelina Jolie
George W. Bush
Nicolas Cage

LII:
Jesse Eisenberg
Richard Dawkins
Randall Monroe
David Hewlett
Johnny Galecki

ESE:
Nathan Fillion
Ellen Page
David Letterman
Will Smith


Beta:
SLE:
Donald Trump
Christopher Hitchens
George Carlin
Lyndon B. Johnson
Vladimir Lenin
Mila Kunis
Quentin Tarantino
Pink

IEI:
Radha Mitchell
Leon Trotsky
Carl Sagan
Yolandi Visser (Die Antwoord)

LSI:
Sarah Silverman
Vladimir Putin
Dan Auerbach
Bruce Lee
Kristen Stewart
George Lucas

EIE:
Jerry Seinfeld
Tom Cruise
Ben Affleck
Russell Brand
Sacha Baron Cohen


Gamma:
LIE:
Sam Harris
Carrie Brownstein (Sleater-Kinney)
Dita von Teese
Mark Zuckerberg

ESI:
Lady Gaga
Eminem
Jack White
Michael Jackson
Chester Bennington (Linkin Park)
Simon Cowell

ILI:
Al Gore
Alan Moore
Karl Marx
George R. R. Martin
Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails)

SEE:
Daniel Tosh
Bill Clinton
Ronald Reagan
Zack de la Rocha (Rage Against the Machine)


Delta:
LSE:
Hillary Clinton
Josef Stalin
Bill Maher

EII:
C. S. Lewis
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
J. K. Rowling

SLI:
Gillian Anderson
J. R. R. Tolkein
Harrison Ford

IEE:
Joss Whedon
Marina Diamandis (Marina & The Diamonds)
David Duchovny
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,503 Posts
With thanks to @Entropic and @Verglas for suggestions and helping with the typing.

Alpha
ILE:
Stephen Colbert
Albert Einstein
Barack Obama
Jon Stewart

SEI:
Angelina Jolie
George W. Bush
Nicolas Cage

LII:
Jesse Eisenberg
Richard Dawkins
Randall Monroe
David Hewlett
Johnny Galecki

ESE:
Nathan Fillion
Ellen Page
David Letterman
Will Smith


Beta:
SLE:
Donald Trump
Christopher Hitchens
George Carlin
Lyndon B. Johnson
Vladimir Lenin
Mila Kunis
Quentin Tarantino
Pink

IEI:
Radha Mitchell
Leon Trotsky
Carl Sagan
Yolandi Visser (Die Antwoord)

LSI:
Sarah Silverman
Vladimir Putin
Dan Auerbach
Bruce Lee
Kristen Stewart
George Lucas

EIE:
Jerry Seinfeld
Tom Cruise
Ben Affleck
Russell Brand
Sacha Baron Cohen


Gamma:
LIE:
Sam Harris
Carrie Brownstein (Sleater-Kinney)
Dita von Teese
Mark Zuckerberg

ESI:
Lady Gaga
Eminem
Jack White
Michael Jackson
Chester Bennington (Linkin Park)
Simon Cowell

ILI:
Al Gore
Alan Moore
Karl Marx
George R. R. Martin
Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails)

SEE:
Daniel Tosh
Bill Clinton
Ronald Reagan
Zack de la Rocha (Rage Against the Machine)


Delta:
LSE:
Hillary Clinton
Josef Stalin
Bill Maher

EII:
C. S. Lewis
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
J. K. Rowling

SLI:
Gillian Anderson
J. R. R. Tolkein
Harrison Ford

IEE:
Joss Whedon
Marina Diamandis (Marina & The Diamonds)
David Duchovny
Please, many of those are very off. But thank you for copy pasting
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,511 Posts
I'm interested in knowing Joseph Campbell's and Kurt Vonnegut's respective types.
Campbell seems like the ultimate Ni-base, but I have trouble deciding if he's ILI or IEI, leaning towards IEI due to the IEI's characteristic poetic language. Vonnegut on the other hand nearly seems like an Ne-base, but I don't see Ji PoLR...
Haven't read Campbell myself, but I think I agree with beta for him (very familiar with the brand of science that is supportive of his way of viewing the world, though). There's an aspect of beta Ni when paired with Ti that gets obsessed with pattern-seeking and trying to fit every little part of life into a logical framework that you don't see in gamma, because in the irrational dyad, Ti is simply not given prominence for being a rational element and in the rational dyad, it is ignored in favor of Te-Fi.

Not familiar enough with Kurt Vonnegut to make any comment.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,000 Posts
I really like Campbell.

BILL MOYERS: Joseph Campbell believed that everything begins with a story, so we begin this series with Joseph Campbell with one of his favorites. He was in Japan for a conference on religion, and he overheard another American delegate, a social philosopher from New York, say to a Shinto priest, “We’ve been now to a good many ceremonies and have seen quite a few of your shrines. But I don’t get your ideology, I don’t get your theology.” The Japanese paused as though in deep thought, and then slowly shook his head. ìI think we don’t have ideology,” he said, “we don’t have theology. We dance.”

Joseph Campbell was one of the most spiritual men I ever met, but he didn’t have an ideology or a theology. Mythology was to him the song of the universe, music so deeply embedded in our collective unconscious that we dance to it, even when we can’t name the tune. Over the last two summers of his life, we taped these conversations in California, at Skywalker Ranch, the home of his friend, George Lucas, whose movie trilogy Star Wars had been influenced by Campbell’s work. We talked about the message and meaning of myth, about the first storytellers, about love and marriage, gods and goddesses, religion, ritual, art and psychology. But we always came around to his favorite subject, the hero with a thousand faces. Why the hero with a thousand faces?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: We have not even to risk the adventure alone, for the heroes of all time have gone before us. The labyrinth is thoroughly known; we have only to follow the thread of the hero path. And where we had thought to find an abomination, we shall find a god. And where we had thought to slay another, we shall slay ourselves. And where we had thought to travel outward, we shall come to the center of our own existence. And where we had thought to be alone, we shall be with all the world.

always liked this one too:

Campbell: Eternity isn't some later time. Eternity isn't a long time. Eternity has nothing to do with time. Eternity is that dimension of here and now which thinking and time cuts out. This is it. And if you don't get it here, you won't get it anywhere. And the experience of eternity right here and now is the function of life.
 
1 - 20 of 518 Posts
Top