# Dual Couples



## zelder (Apr 17, 2011)

This is a thread for posting examples of dual couples. I'd like to see other's opinions. Feel free to disagree with my examples. I don't purport to be an expert or infallible in my assumptions. 

Example 1:







Alecia Moore (ENFp) and Carey Hart (ISTp)

Example 2: 







Bill Gates (ENTj) and Melinda (ISFj)

Example 3:







Moi (INTj) and wife (ESFj)

others coming soon....


----------



## zelder (Apr 17, 2011)

I'm less sure of this one but maybe Robert Pattinson (INFj) and Kristen Stewart (ESTj)


----------



## zelder (Apr 17, 2011)

Ben Stiller (ENTp) and Christine Taylor (ISFp)


----------



## zelder (Apr 17, 2011)

Matt Damon (ESTj) and Luciana (INFj)


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Alecia Moore (Pink) is typed as ESTp on socionics forums. I don't know of Hart's type but if ISTp then they are in Mirage relations.


----------



## Fern (Sep 2, 2012)

zelder said:


> I'm less sure of this one but maybe Robert Pattinson (INFj) and Kristen Stewart (ESTj)



I'd say Pattinson is an INFP since he displays so much Fi in interviews...
No wonder they broke up!


----------



## zelder (Apr 17, 2011)

Fern said:


> I'd say Pattinson is an INFP since he displays so much Fi in interviews...
> No wonder they broke up!


Maybe so. However, socionics does a really bad job of describing the difficulties that happen during the initial stages of a dual relation. Duals are very different and need to get used to each other. Commitment, common values and goals are necessary to make it work. My wife and I had some major fallouts as we dated and during the first years of the relationship. After each conflict, we grew to understand each other better and the next conflict wasn't so bad. Duality grows sweeter with time and effort. 

I believe my wife's parents were duals (INFj father and ESTj mother). The mother was a selfish narcissist and had a one night stand. It's a sad story. Duals still have to work at the relationship, it's just that with duality, there is a major payoff for the effort.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Fern said:


> I'd say Pattinson is an INFP since he displays so much Fi in interviews...
> No wonder they broke up!


First of all, Socionics Fi =/= JCF Fi. Second, EII (INFj) is the Fi-base NF in Socionics. IEI (INFp) is NiFe.

I don't have an educated opinion on Stewart's and Pattinson's types, but I have heard IEE and SLI tossed around.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> First of all, Socionics Fi =/= JCF Fi. Second, EII (INFj) is the Fi-base NF in Socionics. IEI (INFp) is NiFe.
> 
> I don't have an educated opinion on Stewart's and Pattinson's types, but I have heard IEE and SLI tossed around.


The functions "supposedly" exist in real life, that is how Jung came to create them. What was created wasn't some random system with arbitrary axioms that people had fit into much like enneagram. Jung regarded it as a science, seemingly personally at the least, yet he understood why it was rejected. As a result when people choose the interpret the functions as "objectively" existing, they overall see the functions differently as interpreted in both MBTI and socionics. Myers or Augusta's descriptions of the functions are just seen as their subjective impressions.

Of course when the systems are interpreted as independent systems that bare no relation to objective reality, then the method of typing and functions are different under Jung, Myers and Agusta's functions are not equal at all since they fail under deductive reasoning.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

zelder said:


> Maybe so. However, socionics does a really bad job of describing the difficulties that happen during the initial stages of a dual relation. Duals are very different and need to get used to each other. Commitment, common values and goals are necessary to make it work. My wife and I had some major fallouts as we dated and during the first years of the relationship. After each conflict, we grew to understand each other better and the next conflict wasn't so bad. Duality grows sweeter with time and effort.
> 
> I believe my wife's parents were duals (INFj father and ESTj mother). The mother was a selfish narcissist and had a one night stand. It's a sad story. Duals still have to work at the relationship, it's just that with duality, there is a major payoff for the effort.


That is exactly what makes me undermine type based dating instead focusing more on the character. I may even end up with my conflictor (ESFj) as a long term partner when the person fits with my ideals.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> The functions "supposedly" exist in real life, that is how Jung came to create them. What was created wasn't some random system with arbitrary axioms that people had fit into much like enneagram. Jung regarded it as a science, seemingly personally at the least, yet he understood why it was rejected. As a result when people choose the interpret the functions as "objectively" existing, they overall see the functions differently as interpreted in both MBTI and socionics. Myers or Augusta's descriptions of the functions are just seen as their subjective impressions.
> 
> Of course when the systems are interpreted as independent systems that bare no relation to objective reality, then the method of typing and functions are different under Jung, Myers and Agusta's functions are not equal at all since they fail under deductive reasoning.


If that's your long-way method of saying "they are too the same!", we are not going to agree. Ever.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> If that's your long-way method of saying "they are too the same!", we are not going to agree. Ever.


There are different perspectives on the matter, I'm just trying to make the other one clearer, I know you don't share it we've discussed this before. You lean on the camp that doesn't see the objective pattern of the 8 different ways thinking feeling sensing and intuition manifest in people, hence with deductive logic Jung Fi =/=Myers Fi=/=Augusta Fi (and of course David Keirsey who drifts totally from Jung)


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> There are different perspectives on the matter, I'm just trying to make the other one clearer, I know you don't share it we've discussed this before. You lean on the camp that doesn't see the objective pattern of the 8 different ways thinking feeling sensing and intuition manifest in people, hence with deductive logic Jung Fi =/=Myers Fi=/=Augusta Fi (and of course David Keirsey who drifts totally from Jung)


"Objective pattern" my ass. I see that they aren't defined in the same manner, so they shouldn't be seen as the same thing. It's as simple as that.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Kanerou said:


> If that's your long-way method of saying "they are too the same!", we are not going to agree. Ever.


Sorry for intruding :tongue: but I wanted to jump in.

It wasn´t simply the long way it was an attempt to explain. I see in your approach a problem with ambiguity but what bothers me is that according to some typings a Ne-PoLR or something like that makes no sense. Where is the key? 

OK in short the subjective descriptions are not the same but the 8 innate existing mental processes that evolve into different outputs (subjective descriptions) are essentially the same. How is that?



Kanerou said:


> "Objective pattern" my ass. I see that they aren't defined in the same manner, so they shouldn't be seen as the same thing. It's as simple as that.


Only because they aren´t defined in the same manner - the 8 innate existing processes aren´t the same? Why shouldn´t they be viewed as the same?


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Zero11 said:


> Sorry for intruding :tongue: but I wanted to jump in.
> 
> It wasn´t simply the long way it was an attempt to explain. I see in your approach a problem with ambiguity but what bothers me is that according to some typings a Ne-PoLR or something like that makes no sense. Where is the key?


I have an issue with his conclusions and the long-winded way he takes to voice them (plus the fact that a relative portion of what he says makes absolutely no sense and strikes me as potentially talking out his ass). I don't really understand what you're getting at with the Ne-polr comment. What "some typings"?



> OK in short the subjective descriptions are not the same but the 8 innate existing mental processes that evolve into different outputs (subjective descriptions) are essentially the same. How is that?


And what proof do you have that these "8 innate existing mental processes" are the same? They have the same source, but that doesn't mean the systems' founders didn't take their ideas in different directions, thereby making pointless any attempt to unify them. Sticking the same label onto different descriptions does not make everything with that label the same thing. And dear heavens, why can't Boolean talk like you do?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> "Objective pattern" my ass. I see that they aren't defined in the same manner, so they shouldn't be seen as the same thing. It's as simple as that.


At least you seem to understand the differences in our weltanschauung now


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> And what proof do you have that these "8 innate existing mental processes" are the same? They have the same source, but that doesn't mean the systems' founders didn't take their ideas in different directions, thereby making pointless any attempt to unify them. Sticking the same label onto different descriptions does not make everything with that label the same thing. And dear heavens, why can't Boolean talk like you do?


The processes are dynamic and the descriptions are marred by the subjective perceptions of the authors. The "assumption" is that they exist, the work is rejected by science for lacking ST thinking, concrete empirically testable logic.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> At least you seem to understand the differences in our weltanschauung now


....Um, what? You seem to have a habit of shunting me into a particular "thought camp" based on your own assumption of what I think as opposed to what I actually do think. So I'm curious... in what way did you assume I didn't understand our differences in thought? Because it's been pretty clear to me since the last time we clashed.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Kanerou said:


> I have an issue with his conclusions and the long-winded way he takes to voice them (plus the fact that a relative portion of what he says makes absolutely no sense and *strikes me as potentially talking out his ass*). I don't really understand what you're getting at with the Ne-polr comment. What "some typings"?


He tries to explain it more complex because the topic itself seems complicated. Thats also my perception

I´m currently in a good state :blushed: and *he has problems like me in a bad state to articulate himself (as I understood that something like that whatever**)*. The constant rain washed the dirt out of the air and I was going into Se-mode until now. In this state I am able to process and formulate better internal and external my internal processes are far clearer, better and faster to bring them into a extroverted form. This writting didn´t took so long I was out to eat for a short time. 

aestrivex is LII so Ne-creative regarding my understanding
Promethea is probably IEI (Ne-ignoring)
and LeaT LII or EII whatsoever both are Ne-creative

they disagree with merging the both systems



> And what proof do you have that these "8 innate existing mental processes" are the same? Sticking the same label onto different descriptions does not make everything with that label the same thing. And dear heavens, why can't Boolean talk like you do?


I don´t need proof because I perceive them as I read and understood them and I could draw my conclusions. The question is why are you using a system without measurements in the first place if you don´t believe in the functions?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> ....Um, what? You seem to have a habit of shunting me into a particular "thought camp" based on your own assumption of what I think as opposed to what I actually do think. So I'm curious... in what way did you assume I didn't understand our differences in thought? Because it's been pretty clear to me since the last time we clashed.


Intuition duh.


----------



## zelder (Apr 17, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> That is exactly what makes me undermine type based dating instead focusing more on the character. I may even end up with my conflictor (ESFj) as a long term partner when the person fits with my ideals.


I agree that character is way more important than personality type. In fact, I think that there is something of value we can learn/obtain from interaction with each type.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Kanerou said:


> ....Um, what? You seem to have a habit of shunting me into a particular "thought camp" based on your own assumption of what I think as opposed to what I actually do think. So I'm curious... in what way did you assume I didn't understand our differences in thought? Because it's been pretty clear to me since the last time we clashed.


You generated exactly this impression with your clear-cut rejection/statements regarding complex theoretical thought-processes. Not fully but still to this extent that there was a certain core need to dig deeper into this enigma.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Zero11 said:


> You generated exactly this impression with your clear-cut rejection/statements regarding complex theoretical thought-processes. Not fully but still to this extent that there was a certain core need to dig deeper into this enigma.


I don't have to get into the "deeper, complex processes" of an idea to disagree with its conclusion. Besides, he explained his views in the last thread, and I still rejected them after that.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Kanerou said:


> I don't have to get into the "deeper, complex processes" of an idea to disagree with its conclusion. Besides, he explained his views in the last thread, and I still rejected them after that.


Synthesis is dependent on opposites and I wanted to understand the other side. Like most of the mbti-users that are trying to understand how people work and such stuff. Maybe if there was an error in my thinking that I could eliminate or change it or just simple learn more about it and later be able to use this method like a new skill or such. A simple need to broaden ones perception for a better understanding that leads to more efficiency in coming scenarios.

As I understood it Result types are Involuntionary and Process Types are Evolutionary (more and more information)


----------



## zelder (Apr 17, 2011)

Getting back to the purpose of the thread.









Ashton (ENFp) and Demi (ISTp)

Duality doesn't always work out.


----------



## zelder (Apr 17, 2011)

Will Smith (ENTp) and Jada (ISFp)


----------



## zelder (Apr 17, 2011)

Anybody have an opinion on Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie? What are their types?


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

If this thread needs to be split, I'm OK with that.



Zero11 said:


> He tries to explain it more complex because the topic itself seems complicated. Thats also my perception



If I desire further explanation, I'll ask for it. I don't need the scenic route.



> I´m currently in a good state and he has problems like me in a bad state to articulate himself (as I understood that something like that whatever). The constant rain washed the dirt out of the air and I was going into Se-mode until now. In this state I am able to process and formulate better internal and external my internal processes are far clearer, better and faster to bring them into a extroverted form. This writting didn´t took so long I was out to eat for a short time.


I have no idea what you're attempting to say here; trying to decipher it doesn't get me very far, so I will save my brain the trouble. You're free to clarify it if you wish, but doing so is not a necessity.



> aestrivex is LII so Ne-creative regarding my understanding
> Promethea is probably IEI (Ne-ignoring)
> and LeaT LII or EII whatsoever both are Ne-creative
> they disagree with merging the both systems


Aestrivex is ILI. 

Agreeing or disagreeing with your conclusion is not type-related. I find myself wondering if this is some kind of attempt to pass off any disagreement as a fundamental misunderstanding rather than others simply looking at the evidence and drawing a different conclusion, like "if they could only see things the way I do, they would see I'm correct." It doesn't have to be the former, and perhaps accepting that and moving on would allow you to devote more energy toward more profitable trains of thought (or what you would consider more profitable, in this case).



> I don´t need proof because I perceive them as I read and understood them and I could draw my conclusions.


So you're working off of your own understanding/interpretation of the theories. Right. That doesn't go anywhere in convincing me of your correctness.



> The question is why are you using a system without measurements in the first place if you don´t believe in the functions?


And where did you come up with this conclusion? Because I don't agree with you? First of all, I don't have to believe in the tangible manifestation of functions/IEs (such as areas in one's brain) nor in their ultimately meaning the same thing to find personality theory useful and fascinating. I don't care if they ever find that kind of proof, and I won't be crushed if they never do. Second, disagreeing that Myers and Augusta were describing the same thing does not mean I reject Jung's functions; it just means I have a different view than you do.



Boolean11 said:


> The processes are dynamic and the descriptions are marred by the subjective perceptions of the authors. The "assumption" is that they exist, the work is rejected by science for lacking ST thinking, concrete empirically testable logic.


In other words, "I believe they gave their own flavor to describing the exact same processes", and "I think functions/IEs are tangible processes even if science hasn't found them yet". Disagree on the first, don't care on the latter.



Boolean11 said:


> Intuition duh.


...................................................................................................................................


*throws her keyboard at his head* What the FUCK is wrong with some of you people? Is "intuition" some kind of code word for "I can't be bothered to substantiate my views with actual proof", or "I'm too good for evidence, so I'm completely justified in pulling stuff out of my ass and parading it around as viable truth"? God, you make my head hurt.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> In other words, "I believe they gave their own flavor to describing the exact same processes", and "I think functions/IEs are tangible processes even if science hasn't found them yet". Disagree on the first, don't care on the latter.


This crap is psuedo-science till empirical evidence can be found otherwise we go by Jung's assumption. 



> *throws her keyboard at his head* What the FUCK is wrong with some of you people? Is "intuition" some kind of code word for "I can't be bothered to substantiate my views with actual proof", or "I'm too good for evidence, so I'm completely justified in pulling stuff out of my ass and parading it around as viable truth"? God, you make my head hurt.


Intuition is abstract and detached from the concrete real world, a fine line between genius and crackpot.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> This crap is psuedo-science till empirical evidence can be found otherwise we go by Jung's assumption.


Jung wasn't around to comment on MBTI or Socionics, so he can't tell you their relevance to his system. Looks like you have to go on your own assumptions there.



> Intuition is abstract and detached from the concrete real world, a fine line between genius and crackpot.


That's no excuse for such behavior.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

For the sake of being relatively on-topic, I've seen Belldandy and Keiichi from "Oh My Goddess" typed as SEI and ILE. Not a real-life couple, but duals nonetheless.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> Jung wasn't around to comment on MBTI or Socionics, so he can't tell you their relevance to his system. Looks like you have to go on your own assumptions there.


There are no empirical facts, this shit is not falsifiable so people go with what they feel. 


Kanerou said:


> That's no excuse for such behavior.


I don't get it??? However if your interpretations of my statements are different from my intention then the fault is with you, specifically when you accuse me of malicious intent/behaviour.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> There are no empirical facts, this shit is not falsifiable so people go with what they feel.


Thank you for acknowledging that. 



> I don't get it??? However if your interpretations of my statements are different from my intention then the fault is with you, specifically when you accuse me of malicious intent/behaviour.


There is a difference between: 
A) drawing a conclusion (possibly incorrect) from what's in front of you and then being able to show your train of reasoning (even if ultimately faulty), and 
B) saying "fuck proof, I use intuition" when being asked for evidence or reasoning, as if such an explanation is an equal and perfectly acceptable substitute for said evidence or reasoning. This is what especially pisses me off.

Where exactly did I accuse you of malicious intent?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> Thank you for acknowledging that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I thought you came from an understanding of "intuition" similar to mine (being a fine line between crackpot and genius), I'm at a point where I'm largely fatigued, too lazy to explain my internal systems' logic .


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> I thought you came from an understanding of "intuition" similar to mine (being a fine line between crackpot and genius), I'm at a point where I'm largely fatigued, too lazy to explain my internal systems' logic .


Should you wish to explain your view of intuition to me (in a way that makes sense) later, I am open to that.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Kanerou said:


> If this thread needs to be split, I'm OK with that.


good idea


> If I desire further explanation, I'll ask for it. I don't need the scenic route.


Yes, Imperatrix :kitteh: seriously wtf? It was only a objective observation not an issue of personal definition.



> I have no idea what you're attempting to say here; trying to decipher it doesn't get me very far, so I will save my brain the trouble. You're free to clarify it if you wish, but doing so is not a necessity.


There is nothing to decipher it speaks for itself - I was able to articulate my thoughts to a satisfying understanding level so that an exchange can be fruitful. This is not always the case and it was the answer to your question.




> Aestrivex is ILI.


I´m seriously doubting your xNTp knowledge because the way he describes his thoughts resembles others of his kind like echidna1000 or several other NTp´s. He is analytical, non-synthesizing and as far from me and LXPilot or Cyamitide. The crucial difference between Ti and Ni. They give filled original answers in the type me threads, they write their stuff goddamn in Ti language inspired by Ne (Objective Perception) thats the same recognition with all the functions and this leads back to the source. Gahhhhh fucking Ti - Te conflicts freak me out :angry:



> Agreeing or disagreeing with your conclusion is not type-related. I find myself wondering if this is some kind of attempt to pass off any disagreement as a fundamental misunderstanding rather than others simply looking at the evidence and drawing a different conclusion, like "if they could only see things the way I do, they would see I'm correct." It doesn't have to be the former, and perhaps accepting that and moving on would allow you to devote more energy toward more profitable trains of thought (or what you would consider more profitable, in this case).


I don´t want you on my side :dry: I want to understand "why" you are on the other side. What gears are behind it? Why is it like it is? I gave up a long time to come to an agreement it only looks like it because it is written in the questioning style.



> So you're working off of your own understanding/interpretation of the theories. Right. That doesn't go anywhere in convincing me of your correctness.


You can mirror this understanding also in other users that are recognized the exact same thing so where is this <my own interpretation of the theories?>

The phenomenon wasn´t only observed by me roud: otherwise there were no such a theory a Te-user could use in the first place.



> And where did you come up with this conclusion? Because I don't agree with you? First of all, I don't have to believe in the tangible manifestation of functions/IEs (such as areas in one's brain) nor in their ultimately meaning the same thing to find personality theory useful and fascinating. I don't care if they ever find that kind of proof, and I won't be crushed if they never do. Second, disagreeing that Myers and Augusta were describing the same thing does not mean I reject Jung's functions; it just means I have a different view than you do.


You don´t have to believe? You took this to literal, I don´t believe in the functions I know that they exist.
So you believe in the jungian functions (or whatsoever) but you handle the both systems differently. Do you make a connection between Jung and MBTI or Socionics then? 

II. I know that you have a different view because I´m trying to understand this view.



Boolean11 said:


> There are no empirical facts, this shit is not falsifiable so people go with what they feel.


There are no empirical facts for anything that can be subjectified should we change it into a phliosophical disscussion about how subjective life is? There was a thread on the INTP forum if Logic really exist - this guy was calling it an Illusion.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Zero11 said:


> Yes, Imperatrix seriously wtf? It was only a objective observation not an issue of personal definition.


I was voicing my thoughts toward Boolean's manner of communication, not complaining about you. I find you generally more concise than he is.


> There is nothing to decipher it speaks for itself - I was able to articulate my thoughts to a satisfying understanding level so that an exchange can be fruitful. This is not always the case and it was the answer to your question.


Thank you for clarifying. *shrug* You still seem to be comprehensible more often than he is, even if I don't always agree with what you're communicating.


> I´m seriously doubting your xNTp knowledge because the way he describes his thoughts resembles others of his kind like echidna1000 or several other NTp´s. He is analytical, non-synthesizing and as far from me and LXPilot or Cyamitide. The crucial difference between Ti and Ni. They give filled original answers in the type me threads, they write their stuff goddamn in Ti language inspired by Ne (Objective Perception) thats the same recognition with all the functions and this leads back to the source. Gahhhhh fucking Ti - Te conflicts freak me out


And I question your understanding of Socionics if you think him LII. Makes us even.


> I don´t want you on my side I want to understand "why" you are on the other side. What gears are behind it? Why is it like it is? I gave up a long time to come to an agreement it only looks like it because it is written in the questioning style.


Alright. I'm on the other side because based on the function/IE descriptions (which are not enough alike), I consider the two theories irreconcilable, and I see your side as going through mental gymnastics to try and force the two to fit. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. It doesn't have to be a clearly Ti vs Te approach, nor an Ne-valuing vs Ne-devaluing approach, nor anything theory-based, really.


> You can mirror this understanding also in other users that are recognized the exact same thing so where is this <my own interpretation of the theories?>
> The phenomenon wasn´t only observed by me otherwise there were no such a theory a Te-user could use in the first place.


Be it by you only or a number of people who agree with you, you're still working with how the theory operates according to your understanding (ie how it best makes sense to you).


> You don´t have to believe? You took this to literal,


I assumed that you meant exactly what you said. There was no reason to believe otherwise.


> I don´t believe in the functions I know that they exist.


Whatever floats your boat.


> So you believe in the jungian functions (or whatsoever) but you handle the both systems differently. Do you make a connection between Jung and MBTI or Socionics then?


I recognize MBTI and Socionics as both having roots in Jung but ultimately being separate systems.


> II. I know that you have a different view because I´m trying to understand this view.


Alright. Then why did you assume I don't believe in the functions? What did I say that could possibly have led you to such a conclusion?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> There are no empirical facts for anything that can be subjectified should we change it into a phliosophical disscussion about how subjective life is? There was a thread on the INTP forum if Logic really exist - this guy was calling it an Illusion.


Yet on an intuitive I believe in the function's Jung's hunch since I can observe the patterns. @CosmicJalapeno had a really interesting question and insight yet people were stupid enough to overlook it. Epestimology is a great enigma and most people in that thread failed to understand it. I mean how stupid/misguided do you have to be to conclude that: "if logic flawed then why use logic then... so the assertion to criticize logic fails since its standing on logic". I'm thinking what the f*ck? That is an obvious simplistic conclusion, where is the intellectual capacity to ponder the enigma that is the theory of knowledge?


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Zero11 said:


> I´m seriously doubting your xNTp knowledge because the way he describes his thoughts resembles others of his kind like echidna1000 or several other NTp´s. He is analytical, non-synthesizing and as far from me and LXPilot or Cyamitide. The crucial difference between Ti and Ni. They give filled original answers in the type me threads, they write their stuff goddamn in Ti language inspired by Ne (Objective Perception) thats the same recognition with all the functions and this leads back to the source. Gahhhhh fucking Ti - Te conflicts freak me out :angry:


i'm a bit curious -- where in your view have i "described my thoughts?" what is the source material you use to make this assessment?


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> There are different perspectives on the matter, I'm just trying to make the other one clearer, I know you don't share it we've discussed this before. You lean on the camp that doesn't see the objective pattern of the 8 different ways thinking feeling sensing and intuition manifest in people, hence with deductive logic Jung Fi =/=Myers Fi=/=Augusta Fi (and of course David Keirsey who drifts totally from Jung)


I think what kanerou is trying to say is that of course there are different perspectives on the matter, and some are right and some are wrong, and everyone who has an ounce of experience in this topic -- even all but the truly most clueless people on 16t -- understands you are wrong.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Kanerou said:


> I was voicing my thoughts toward Boolean's manner of communication, not complaining about you. I find you generally more concise than he is.


Oh then okay I said nothin :happy:



> Thank you for clarifying. *shrug* You still seem to be comprehensible more often than he is, even if I don't always agree with what you're communicating.


You are like @itsme45 in this respect the communication is hard but interesting.



> And I question your understanding of Socionics if you think him LII. Makes us even.


The problem is that my understanding is built on 100% accuracy that means if I would change a piece over a certain limit for a representative example: 0,14% / 100,00% it would destroy my observations, all the reference points that made this giant net would be useless crap and in the end my complete understanding of this theoretical field would be blown apart. This is impossible assuming that there are so many save points like you would do it in a video game. So if he were ILI that would make me LII and sorry but this would change the situation for the other reference / saving points on 100% recognized intertype dynamics or recognition on articles like the thinking styles or erotic attitudes. Or the aha-effect of being 6w5 or HSP for example. This is a backup with sureness bundled already before I say anything. I need verification before I draw out my final conclusions and sorry that are my final conclusions and not some -in the moment- statements that are changed until it fits into the framework. The changes that are build on the final conclusion are extensions with a maximum change rate of the 0,14% example on the scale. Depending on the stuff that is doing an update on the backup it needs to change the internal structure within some crucial parameters. Otherwise it wouldn´t make any sense and needed fine-tuning to fit in or be a side part like a hybrid theory that is not part of the community.

Possibility II: I misread aestrivex but here is again the problem where is the Ni connectedness? As a dom-N I can kind of like feel it.



> Alright. I'm on the other side because based on the function/IE descriptions (which are not enough alike), I consider the two theories irreconcilable, and I see your side as going through mental gymnastics to try and force the two to fit. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. It doesn't have to be a clearly Ti vs Te approach, nor an Ne-valuing vs Ne-devaluing approach, nor anything theory-based, really.


Mental gymnastics ahhh I see for me this aren´t mental gymnastics because it´s my natural style as I perceive your style on understanding something. For me I don´t force them together because they fit perfectly together if you know what was adjusted and from where. Its not as stable as yours but more flexible I am able to visualize a part we are making progress :mellow:



> Be it by you only or a number of people who agree with you, you're still working with how the theory operates according to your understanding (ie how it best makes sense to you).


Only the ones that came to my mind I have further confirmation based on past experiences that formed this view I don´t let this stuff coming out of nothing like Ti it does.



> I assumed that you meant exactly what you said. There was no reason to believe otherwise.


Sorry Inuitive laziness is part of the game :sad:



> Whatever floats your boat.


Ti vs. Te as always otherwise there were no undertaking like this on this forum about it. No one would be here without this "believe".



> I recognize MBTI and Socionics as both having roots in Jung but ultimately being separate systems.


Only roots in Jung :shocked: woah thats harsh and explains a bit your strict separation. Do you seriously think one were able to created a 8 function equivalent, a psychic system and a alternate route at the same time out of nothing? I see far more connections from Jung to the both systems than you seem to do which is bit weird. Or whatever is between your thought process and mine 



> Alright. Then why did you assume I don't believe in the functions? What did I say that could possibly have led you to such a conclusion?


My perception is that you don´t believe in universal functions. You seem to belive that every theory and interpretation is a new starting point. Like a complete other functional analysis.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Zero11 said:


> Oh then okay I said nothin :happy:


Mmkay.



> You are like @_itsme45_ in this respect the communication is hard but interesting.


...Strange connection to draw, seeing how she and I irritated each other the last (and only) time we tried to debate anything. And if you ever need me to clarify anything for you, just tell me; I will if I can, and I'll tell you if I don't feel I can.



> The problem is that my understanding is built on 100% accuracy that means if I would change a piece over a certain limit for a representative example: 0,14% / 100,00% it would destroy my observations, all the reference points that made this giant net would be useless crap and in the end my complete understanding of this theoretical field would be blown apart. This is impossible assuming that there are so many save points like you would do it in a video game. So if he were ILI that would make me LII and sorry but this would change the situation for the other reference / saving points on 100% recognized intertype dynamics or recognition on articles like the thinking styles or erotic attitudes. Or the aha-effect of being 6w5 or HSP for example. This is a backup with sureness bundled already before I say anything. I need verification before I draw out my final conclusions and sorry that are my final conclusions and not some -in the moment- statements that are changed until it fits into the framework. The changes that are build on the final conclusion are extensions with a maximum change rate of the 0,14% example on the scale. Depending on the stuff that is doing an update on the backup it needs to change the internal structure within some crucial parameters. Otherwise it wouldn´t make any sense and needed fine-tuning to fit in or be a side part like a hybrid theory that is not part of the community.
> 
> Possibility II: I misread aestrivex but here is again the problem where is the Ni connectedness? As a dom-N I can kind of like feel it.


I don't have an opinion on your type, but I don't think his being ILI would make you necessarily LII.



> Mental gymnastics ahhh I see for me this aren´t mental gymnastics because it´s my natural style as I perceive your style on understanding something. For me I don´t force them together because they fit perfectly together if you know what was adjusted and from where. Its not as stable as yours but more flexible I am able to visualize a part we are making progress :mellow:


*headtilt* I'm curious as to what you think my style is.



> Only the ones that came to my mind I have further confirmation based on past experiences that formed this view I don´t let this stuff coming out of nothing like Ti it does.


But does Ti make something out of nothing, or does it take observable data and try and fit it together in a way that makes sense? 


> Sorry Inuitive laziness is part of the game :sad:


I understand something making sense in your head and not in practice. But yeah, I don't read into stuff unless I feel there's a need to.



> Ti vs. Te as always otherwise there were no undertaking like this on this forum about it. No one would be here without this "believe".


What's Ti vs Te got to do with anything? I simply don't require something to exist in the real world in order to draw enjoyment from it. Ti as an arbitrary label attached to certain mental processes or Ti as a label attached to processes for which we can find a physical cause.... doesn't matter to me.


> Only roots in Jung :shocked: woah thats harsh and explains a bit your strict separation. Do you seriously think one were able to created a 8 function equivalent, a psychic system and a alternate route at the same time out of nothing? I see far more connections from Jung to the both systems than you seem to do which is bit weird. Or whatever is between your thought process and mine


I don't at all find that "harsh". I think they started with Jung and took their own direction from there.



> My perception is that you don´t believe in universal functions.


Better way of putting it. I don't believe that there is an "absolute", and that all differences in the attempts to expand upon it can be ignored because they "really meant the same thing". 



> You seem to belive that every theory and interpretation is a new starting point. Like a complete other functional analysis.


Basically, yes.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

aestrivex said:


> i'm a bit curious -- where in your view have i "described my thoughts?" what is the source material you use to make this assessment?


"Desribed my thoughts" was a methaphor for your output :ninja:

This question in itself is already evidence - I would never ask for "source material" or where something came from to letting back up claims. This approach is direct like pure introversion Ti is seeking for Te or at least it looks like that. 

It was very easy I just picked one - there are so many of them.


aestrivex said:


> hi distracteddaydreamer,
> 
> what stands out to me from your questionnaire is your conscience. you spoke mostly about person values in the spirit of how the questions in the questionnaire were posed, which is not so useful, but your answers struck me as fairly -- something, stoic perhaps. it seems like you take the task of being a good person seriously and carefully. this is a message common to Fi dominants and judeo-christian traditions alike which share this common language (at least in terms of the original spirit of the movements). you describe yourself as preferring to be open-minded and you use words like "discoveries" several times. you also describe yourself as both attempting to be optimistic but naturally and easily depressive, which i think is somewhat common among EIIs (and IEEs to a small extent).
> 
> it is sometimes difficult to differentiate these themes from devout christians, but nonetheless i would suggest EII. i would more strongly suggest Ne than Fi values from your questionnaire -- i remember reading it and thinking of your need for positivity and difficulties saying no as possibly like alpha values, but i am not seeing it what i remember thinking as clearly on a second reading.


You describe it like a story in a book(it has consistence not like crunched Te stuff) and you shoot-out crucial points combined with personal (Fe) additions. I could never do this my approach is most likely unpersonal (Fi). Your Ti picks things apart and builds them up structured in such answers. Like itsme45 for example has tried to describe her personal logic (regarding my understanding to this topic). You also seem to be very distant according to my Fi radar.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Zero11 said:


> "Desribed my thoughts" was a methaphor for your output :ninja:
> 
> This question in itself is already evidence - I would never ask for "source material" or where something came from to letting back up claims. This approach is direct like pure introversion Ti is seeking for Te or at least it looks like that.
> 
> ...


Thanks for clarifying. I'd make the exact opposite element attribution in every single case.


----------



## esq (Jun 7, 2012)

I once heard it put that Ti is rationalism and Te is empiricism, and this made sense to me. Does it make sense to you? I think rationalism describes your "building blocks" style of structured thinking. But, @_Zero11_, would you instead attribute this to Ni or something else? 

@_Zero11_, we argue because you believe that MBTI is correct in everything. Is this true or false? Because I think MBTI is wrong in a lot of ways.

Like whenever an ISTP description mentions Se or Ti, I consider it a bunch of nonsense. Yet still half of the description works nicely enough. On the other hand, ISTJ descriptions do not work at all, though I can recognize it in people I know. I only ever test as ISTP and SLI. What would you say of my predicament, @_Zero11_?


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Kanerou said:


> ...Strange connection to draw, seeing how she and I irritated each other the last (and only) time we tried to debate anything. And if you ever need me to clarify anything for you, just tell me; I will if I can, and I'll tell you if I don't feel I can.


I coming back to this :kitteh:



> I don't have an opinion on your type, but I don't think his being ILI would make you necessarily LII.


Now that you mention it - hmm I was never typed by others.



> *headtilt* I'm curious as to what you think my style is.


Whats so curious about it? The style on the other side I don´t have a clear definition of it.



> But does Ti make something out of nothing, or does it take observable data and try and fit it together in a way that makes sense?


The thing is you see intellectual Output and a introverted function is more on itself than a extroverted function because extroversion relies on the object there is a certain influence that shapes it´s appearance.



> I understand something making sense in your head and not in practice. But yeah, I don't read into stuff unless I feel there's a need to.


And I read into everything :laughing:




> What's Ti vs Te got to do with anything? I simply don't require something to exist in the real world in order to draw enjoyment from it. Ti as an arbitrary label attached to certain mental processes or Ti as a label attached to processes for which we can find a physical cause.... doesn't matter to me.


Exactly and this makes you a bearer of introverted logic - this is purely subjective.



> I don't at all find that "harsh". I think they started with Jung and took their own direction from there.


As I thought direct into the next starting point and Ti recalibrating a new system and it´s parts. Te needs reference Te is fed through objects. e.g. What worked before in this or this alternative way?



> Better way of putting it. I don't believe that there is an "absolute", and that all differences in the attempts to expand upon it can be ignored because they "really meant the same thing".


That explains the Pod´Lairian everything is energy evolving :mellow: thanks
A empty room would describe this form and Te would be a room with objects.



aestrivex said:


> Thanks for clarifying. I'd make the exact opposite element attribution in every single case.


I perceive this far from perfect - I tried but I´m obviously not satisfied my judgment couldn´t reach the accuracy of my perception so to speak.



Boolean11 said:


> Yet on an intuitive I believe in the function's Jung's hunch since I can observe the patterns. @_CosmicJalapeno_ had a really interesting question and insight yet people were stupid enough to overlook it. Epestimology is a great enigma and most people in that thread failed to understand it. I mean how stupid/misguided do you have to be to conclude that: "if logic flawed then why use logic then... so the assertion to criticize logic fails since its standing on logic". I'm thinking what the f*ck? That is an obvious simplistic conclusion, where is the intellectual capacity to ponder the enigma that is the theory of knowledge?


You still know his name :laughing: 

Epestimology (there is not even a german wiki of that) thanks that seems really interesting I look into it especially the Socionic related part is interesting. 



> *Analytic–synthetic distinction*
> 
> Main article: Analytic-synthetic distinction
> Some propositions are such that we appear to be justified in believing them to be true just by understanding their meaning. For example, consider, "My father's brother is my uncle." We seem to be justified in believing it to be true by virtue of our knowledge of what its terms mean. Philosophers call such propositions "analytic." Synthetic propositions, on the other hand, have distinct subjects and predicates. An example of a synthetic proposition would be, "My father's brother has black hair." Kant stated that all mathematical and scientific statements are synthetic a priori propositions because they are necessarily true but our knowledge about the attributes of the mathematical or physical subjects we can only get by logical inference.
> The American philosopher W. V. O. Quine, in his "Two Dogmas of Empiricism", famously challenged the distinction, arguing that the two have a blurry boundary.


new stuff :mellow:
@esq

The MBTI is correct in everything what do you mean with that? There is no wrong and right there is only "more accuracy" and "less accuracy" but thats not on the same line as wrong and correct so explain your question a bit further please, because this stuff is complicated. In the ways that the mbti is wrong comes the flexiblity of the functional and definitional freedom into play so it would be indeed "correct in everything" lol. I also merge the Socionic types with the mbti-types that makes the "wrong definitions" in badly phrased definitions. Or facing a huge problem there are only raw function stackings.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Zero11 said:


> I coming back to this :kitteh:


OK.



> Whats so curious about it? The style on the other side I don´t have a clear definition of it.


Just wondering. I thought you meant "you" in the singular, not in the plural sense.



> The thing is you see intellectual Output and a introverted function is more on itself than a extroverted function because extroversion relies on the object there is a certain influence that shapes it´s appearance.


?



> Exactly and this makes you a bearer of introverted logic - this is purely subjective.


Uh, no. In socionics, at least, I am very Te/Fi. I do show a fair amount of Ti preference in JCF (though a couple of people disagree).


> That explains the Pod´Lairian everything is energy evolving :mellow: thanks
> A empty room would describe this form and Te would be a room with objects.


What?


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Kanerou said:


> Just wondering. I thought you meant "you" in the singular, not in the plural sense.


that was unfortunate :crazy:



> But does Ti make something out of nothing, or does it take observable data and try and fit it together in a way that makes sense?
> ?


The second and Ti is more like creating something out of nothing more "new" "fresh" than Te so to say.




> Uh, no. In socionics, at least, I am very Te/Fi. I do show a fair amount of Ti preference in JCF (though a couple of people disagree).


Thats only a definitional disagreement I don´t think this would lead to any results. But it could explai why LeaT thinks that her type is EII in Socionics. 



> What?


Also an analogy-hater? It´s my natural approach I think. If you don´t think there is an "absolute" than your approach to the innate 8 mental processes is a complete different than mine. Thanks the Enigma is finally solved  yeah.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

aestrivex said:


> I think what kanerou is trying to say is that of course there are different perspectives on the matter, and some are right and some are wrong, and everyone who has an ounce of experience in this topic -- even all but the truly most clueless people on 16t -- understands you are wrong.


Of course different weltanchauungs duh, the worldview people start from affect their conclusions. Why does your questioning assume that I am influenced by popular opinion?


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Zero11 said:


> that was unfortunate :crazy:


Why so?



> Thats only a definitional disagreement I don´t think this would lead to any results.


Could you clarify, please? This does not make sense to me.

As for why LeaT is EII in one theory and INTP(?) in another, don't look at me. I'm not Ti-dom; in fact, I type Si-dom (just having trouble pinpointing my aux function).



> Also an analogy-hater? It´s my natural approach I think.


Not understanding what you're trying to say does not communicate a hate for analogies.



> If you don´t think there is an "absolute" than your approach to the innate 8 mental processes is a complete different than mine. Thanks the Enigma is finally solved  yeah.


Well, yeah, it's completely different. That was obvious to me anyway.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Neat off topic... I was mentioned so I noticed  Just a little bit of quick commenting...




Kanerou said:


> "Objective pattern" my ass. I see that they aren't defined in the same manner, so they shouldn't be seen as the same thing. It's as simple as that.


+1 
Definitions matter and the system principles etc behind them matter too, all that's very different about the different theories here.




Boolean11 said:


> The processes are dynamic and the descriptions are marred by the subjective perceptions of the authors. The "assumption" is that they exist, the work is rejected by science for lacking ST thinking, concrete empirically testable logic.


You can assume but it will likely be wrong as you can assume the opposite just as easily... without this "ST thinking" you'll never know. I put that in quotes, I'm sure any type including INTP/INTJ can apply such scientific approach if they want to...




Zero11 said:


> *I don´t need proof* because I perceive them as I read and understood them and I could draw my conclusions.


That's a dangerous way of thinking IMO. I think you did talk about using stuff in practice though... (goal being more efficiency in future scenarios... was that it?) that would be a way of test too.




Kanerou said:


> ...Strange connection to draw, seeing how she and I irritated each other the last (and only) time we tried to debate anything.


Heh we happen to agree in this topic, though. Not type related, I suppose ;P


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> Why does your questioning assume that I am influenced by popular opinion?


And whatever minimal credit can be salvaged from my opinion of you is given for your courage not to do so.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> You can assume but it will likely be wrong as you can assume the opposite just as easily... without this "ST thinking" you'll never know. I put that in quotes, I'm sure any type including INTP/INTJ can apply such scientific approach if they want to...


As an Ni dom my terminology is usually defined in metaphors which fail when they get interpreted literary.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Zero11 said:


> He tries to explain it more complex because the topic itself seems complicated. Thats also my perception
> 
> I´m currently in a good state :blushed: and *he has problems like me in a bad state to articulate himself (as I understood that something like that whatever**)*. The constant rain washed the dirt out of the air and I was going into Se-mode until now. In this state I am able to process and formulate better internal and external my internal processes are far clearer, better and faster to bring them into a extroverted form. This writting didn´t took so long I was out to eat for a short time.
> 
> ...


*gigglefits* @ aestrivex in the alpha quadra.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Promethea said:


> *gigglefits* @ aestrivex in the alpha quadra.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> As an Ni dom my terminology is usually defined in metaphors which fail when they get interpreted literary.


Then the metaphors were pretty crappy in the first place.. unless it's just to build some virtual reality in imagination or something  But I doubt that's your goal or... is it?


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> That's a dangerous way of thinking IMO. I think you did talk about using stuff in practice though... (goal being more efficiency in future scenarios... was that it?) that would be a way of test too.


That was a bit metaphorical (it is already proven to me in some way).


----------



## fizzacks (Dec 28, 2012)

zelder said:


> I'm less sure of this one but maybe Robert Pattinson (INFj) and Kristen Stewart (ESTj)
> 
> View attachment 56463


Well, since I am highly interested in filmmaking, I watch interviews of different actors all the time and you have definitely got Kristen Stewart pinned wrong. Shes definitely INTP. I don't know how you would think extrovert when typing her.


----------



## Mange (Jan 9, 2011)

zelder said:


> I'm less sure of this one but maybe Robert Pattinson (INFj) and Kristen Stewart (ESTj)
> 
> View attachment 56463


kristen is definitely ISTp. not sure of rob, but he seems more extroverted.


----------



## Jorji (Oct 24, 2009)

In MBTI, I'm INFJ with an ISTP. If we flip those last little letters around, I guess it still makes us a dual couple. It is hard work (for at least one of the pair), but there are benefits.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Jorji said:


> In MBTI, I'm INFJ with an ISTP. If we flip those last little letters around, I guess it still makes us a dual couple. It is hard work (for at least one of the pair), but there are benefits.


Its an "activator" relationship


----------



## zelder (Apr 17, 2011)

Alanis Morissette (INFp) and Mario Treadway (ESTp)


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

zelder said:


> I'm less sure of this one but maybe Robert Pattinson (INFj) and Kristen Stewart (ESTj)
> 
> View attachment 56463


ISTp (for her) and INFj (for him) imo, an activity relationship


I read that Prince William and Kate Middleton are a Delta dual couple, ESTj-INFj, not too sure of it myself.


----------



## zelder (Apr 17, 2011)

cyamitide said:


> ISTp (for her) and INFj (for him) imo, an activity relationship


Your're probably right. I didn't really think about that couple too much. I had only read somewhere that she was ESTj and didn't look into it myself.


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

zelder said:


> Anybody have an opinion on Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie? What are their types?


I thought that Angelina was an ESTp for the longest time. But there is something (I'm not sure I can pinpoint it) that she, Charlize Theron, Liz Hurley, Mila Kunis and Vanessa Williams have in common that points to ENTj, imo. 
I've seen Brad typed as ISFj before so maybe they could be another dual couple.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

thankxxyou said:


> kristen is definitely ISTp. not sure of rob, but he seems more extroverted.


I've seen Rob typed as IEE. It vaguely makes sense although I haven't really looked that long and hard to see if I think it lines up with my personal understanding. I could buy LSI for Kristen though.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

yedra said:


> I thought that Angelina was an ESTp for the longest time. But there is something (I'm not sure I can pinpoint it) that she, Charlize Theron, Liz Hurley, Mila Kunis and Vanessa Williams have in common that points to ENTj, imo.
> I've seen Brad typed as ISFj before so maybe they could be another dual couple.


Not sure about socionics but in MBTI he's most definitely an ISFP.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Angelina Jolie is typed as ISFp on 16types: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/31697-Angelina-Jolie
Brad Pitt as Ne-ENTp? I can't remember. If so, they would be duals.


----------



## zelder (Apr 17, 2011)

cyamitide said:


> Angelina Jolie is typed as ISFp on 16types: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/31697-Angelina-Jolie
> Brad Pitt as Ne-ENTp? I can't remember. If so, they would be duals.


Jolie is difficult to type. ISFp is plausible. 

I just did a quick search. Some think that Pitt is ENTj
Socionics Types: LIE-ENTj


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

zelder said:


> Jolie is difficult to type. ISFp is plausible.
> 
> I just did a quick search. Some think that Pitt is ENTj
> Socionics Types: LIE-ENTj


fwiw rick delong has long abandoned that typing of brad pitt, but he doesn't seem to have settled on a new one afaik


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> Angelina Jolie is typed as ISFp on 16types: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/31697-Angelina-Jolie
> Brad Pitt as Ne-ENTp? I can't remember. If so, they would be duals.


I saw as well. If they are duals it could make sense why they apparently still stick together despite all the ruckus that apparently is going on inside their relationship if you are to believe media, anyway.


----------



## zelder (Apr 17, 2011)

aestrivex said:


> fwiw rick delong has long abandoned that typing of brad pitt, but he doesn't seem to have settled on a new one afaik


Does Rick Delong run Sociotype.com too? I thought he did socionics.us.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

zelder said:


> Does Rick Delong run Sociotype.com too? I thought he did socionics.us.


no he doesn't run sociotype. but, sociotype has very few typings that are original.


----------



## Sleepy (Jan 18, 2009)

I don't think there's any way Angelina could be SEI. She is full of Fi, I mean consious, ego-style Fi. But ESI could work, that's my best guess so far. Brad Pitt seems LIE.


----------



## esq (Jun 7, 2012)

By Fi, are you referring to her childrearing or what specifically? I think she does not lack a large smile, if anyone would interpret that as a sign of Fe. She is reclusive but also somewhat of a showman, and she had a sort of hurricane youth, if that would be her inner ESFp peeking out. ESIs confuse me and I rarely recognize them, so maybe you can help me on this. Could you elaborate on why Fi and why this type?


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

Pink - ESTP
Kristen Stewart - ENTP
Ben Stiller - ENTP (agree)
Christine Taylor - INFP
Matt Damon - ENTJ
Luciana Barroso - INFJ(?) (maybe)
Ashton Kutcher - ENTP
Will Smith - ENTP (agree)
Brad Pitt - ISTP
Angelina Jolie - ENTP

couples married, romantic or just friends:









Aleksej Nilov (ENTP), Irina Klimova (ISFP) <parted>









Luc Besson (ISFP), Milla Jovovich (ENTP) <parted>









Ilya Olejnikov (ISTJ), Yurij Stoyanov (ENFJ)









Aleksandr Solovyov (ESTP), Irina Pechernikova (INFP)









John Travolta (ESTP), Kelly Preston (INFP)









Jason Momoa (ESTP), Lisa Bonet (INFP)









Vladimir Klichko (ESTP), Hayden Panettiere (INFP) <parted>









Viktor Baturin (ESTP), Yana Rudkovskaya (INFP) <parted>









Mark Bernes (ESTP), Izolda Izvitskaya (INFP) <parted>









Dmitrij Malikov (INFP), Yelena Malikova (ESTP)









Mstislav Rostropovich (INFP), Galina Vishnevskaya (ESTP)









Timur Batrutdinov (INFP), Igor Harlamov (ESTP)









Mihail Gorbachov (ESFP), Raisa Gorbachova (INTP)









Leonid Agutin (ESFP), Anzhelika Varum (INTP)









Federico Fellini (ESFP), Giulietta Masina (INTP)









Sergej Tsigal (INTP), Lyubov Polishchuk (ESFP)









Vladislav Galkin (ESTJ), Darya Mihajlova (INFJ) <parted>


----------



## Sleepy (Jan 18, 2009)

esq said:


> By Fi, are you referring to her childrearing or what specifically? I think she does not lack a large smile, if anyone would interpret that as a sign of Fe. She is reclusive but also somewhat of a showman, and she had a sort of hurricane youth, if that would be her inner ESFp peeking out. ESIs confuse me and I rarely recognize them, so maybe you can help me on this. Could you elaborate on why Fi and why this type?


Watch more interviews! The way she talks about things, in the interviews I've watched she always brings up a personal perspective, her personal, subjective relation to things and people. She does that a lot. I hardly knew anything about her before but the Fi struck me right away when I started listening to her. She's very confident in her own sense of right and wrong.


----------



## esq (Jun 7, 2012)

I think your point is legitimate. Would you offer us a specific video as a case study? Such that we can share what you have already seen?


----------



## Sleepy (Jan 18, 2009)

esq said:


> I think your point is legitimate. Would you offer us a specific video as a case study? Such that we can share what you have already seen?


Some random clips. I still think ESI.


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

Sleepy said:


> The way she talks about things


Try to feel what she expresses by her nonverbal behavior, it's more correct for typing than words. And take her earlier interviews, from time befor she've loaded her brains with philosophy and religion - from when she was close still to real herself.


----------

