The failures of celebrity typing

[Architect]

It still surprises me how often people confidently type celebrities based on a few things they've said and the public perception and persona they have. For example take one particularly bad example, Celebrity Types.com

Looking at the page above I can easily pick out some mistakes - the co-founders of Google for one. I've met these guys and am fairly confident they are not INTP's. Sergey is highly likely an ISTJ, and Larry is a SF of some type. I've seen and heard too much of Ben Stein to believe he is an INTP, and Tina Fey is also an unlikely candidate.

I know enough to know how difficult it is to type a person, so am very cautious about doing so. The Celebrity Types above are rather obstinate and stuck with their assessment even after several discussions. In my estimation the best one at celebrity typing are the Pod'Lair folks, search threads from Adymus on this board. Even they have made some bad mistakes, such as saying Einstein was an INFJ.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I disagree. Celebritytypes do a MUCH better job than did Pod Lair whose typings were more or less random.

And geez how are celebritytypes.com even a bad example? They've at least got a basis for their typings whereas your average celebrity typing consist of a copypasted list that's been floatin around on the web forever. Methinks your bitter.

Edit: Adymus himself may have been a good typer.. but the lists on Pod'lairs site are utter crap.

 

[Architect]

I disagree. Celebritytypes do a MUCH better job than did Pod Lair whose typings were more or less random.

And geez how are celebritytypes.com even a bad example? They've at least got a basis for their typings whereas your average celebrity typing consist of a copypasted list that's been floatin around on the web forever. Methinks your bitter.

Possibly, but I was prompted by happening to see the Sergey and Larry INTP characterization in particular. I'm quite sure they're wrong on those two, and I also know it's futile to tell them otherwise.

However I'm curious to hear what their methodology is, please explain.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

The problem with this whole idea is that we confuse the image of a person projected towards an audience (i.e. the scientific community, the art world, the customers, the movie goers, the investors etc. etc.) with the true psyche of the individual, which is hardly ever revealed to the public.
This relates to a problem which i have observed in various emotional intelligence tests.
The persons depicted are in an artificial environment and mimic the emotion intended to be depicted.

Spoiler

The theory is put into practice, but fails to depict it naturally.
It almost comes across as a caricature.
Reality is much more complex, for instance i had regarded above picture as "surprise",
because in certain contexts this could very well be the case.
The test says that i am wrong, yet i am not.
Surprise can have elements of fear, i.e. the fear of the unknown.

 

[Void]

Off-topic:

Fear is negative, whereas surprise almost always, if not always is positive. Fear is negative in the way that what we fear can harm or kill us, and it needs to be avoided. This is portrayed in physiological features. For example in the face, eyelids contract, narrowing the eyes in an effort to protect them from harm. Also, the lips straighten the mouth in order to close it.

Surprise on the other hand is positive in the way that we want to know more about something. This is also seen in physiological features. And again, for the face, with surprise the eyelids actually open up, the eyebrows pull up, in an effort to let more light or information get in the eyes. Also, the mouth opens up, depending on how surprised the person is, in effort to gain information.

Now, surprise and fear are closely related, so they can be hard to differentiate, but there is a relatively clear line between the two.

That picture depicts fear, not surprise. So, you are wrong.

If you want to know more, I suggest reading Darwin's theory/book about the expression of emotion in humans and animals, and Paul Ekman's FACS theory, which taxonomizes facial expressions.


On-topic:

Your point is still valid. People don't often appear as they are.

 

[CT-]

Hi there,

I'm one of the admins of CelebrityTypes.com.

OP, we agree that it is very difficult to type someone and that many typings will in some sense have to be tentative. This problem is not merely resident to us, however, but to *all* typing endevors.

Your impression is that we are "stuck with their assessment even after several discussions" but to our knowledge, we have never received a single email from you. On the contrary, we saw a post you once made that we agreed with, and we went out of our way to understand your input and credit you, even though you had never contacted us. If that is being "stuck in our assessment," I'd hate to see what "closed to input" would look like.

To our knowledge, we have never received a single email from you. We revise our typings based on qualified user input all the time. The latest instance of us doing so was November 22nd, 2013, which is less than a month ago. So how do you know that attempting to set us straight is "futile"?

Also, we have changed many typings on our site, and been public about doing so, but we have never said that Einstein was INFJ.

Best from yours truly,
CelebrityTypes.com

 

[Jennywocky]

Ahhhhh... "vanity searches" make the world go 'round.

 

[Jennywocky]

The problem with this whole idea is that we confuse the image of a person projected towards an audience (i.e. the scientific community, the art world, the customers, the movie goers, the investors etc. etc.) with the true psyche of the individual, which is hardly ever revealed to the public.

I agree, to the degree that celebrities in general are rewarded to cultivate a particular image via which they interact with the populace, which can differ significantly from their relaxed/private image, depending.

Also, I think too much public-figure typing involves recognizing and grabbing a smattering of details of interest to the typer, versus triangulating upon and clarifying the motivations and overall strategies of the person in question. The definition of the object is calculated by the perspective of the observer, rather than being generated from the object itself.

 

[Architect]

Your impression is that we are "stuck with their assessment even after several discussions" but to our knowledge, we have never received a single email from you.
...
To our knowledge, we have never received a single email from you. We revise our typings based on qualified user input all the time. The latest instance of us doing so was November 22nd, 2013, which is less than a month ago. So how do you know that attempting to set us straight is "futile"?

Yes it was a year or two ago on Ben Stein**. I have some references, there is a PM asking Lyra to do a Pod'Lair read on him because you folks were insisting he was an INTP. However a cursory search doesn't bring up the original discussion between me and one of your admins.

On the contrary, we saw a post you once made that we agreed with, and we went out of our way to understand your input and credit you, even though you had never contacted us. If that is being "stuck in our assessment," I'd hate to see what "closed to input" would look like.

Did I touch a nerve? Perhaps I was too vitriolic, but given the difficulties of public typing that we all say on this thread you should expect it. I mean, you have long lists of people who you confidently state is one type or another, how can you be so sure? After deep study I've only been willing to pronounce a few public people as a type. For example, Larry and Sergey, can you really reliably type them as INTP's? I am one, have one for a son, and have two friends who are them. I've also met the Google cofounders, and get little INTP vibe. Sergey I'd put as an ISTP, and Larry is probably a Feeler of some sort. *

Likewise Tina Fey, Paul Allen and many others there seem off base. I see a lot of what looks like "famous person does good with technology, so is an INTP". You do hit a few though, like Allen Greenspan and Albert Einstein. How about Larry David? Think deeply and study his life, writings and what he's done, do you see it?

Also, we have changed many typings on our site, and been public about doing so, but we have never said that Einstein was INFJ.

That is true, however the Einstein INFJ comment was directed at Pod'Lair, who mistyped him as such. My point was that they have the best track record as far as I know, even though their approach has many other problems.

* I've worked around Silicon Valley and tech companies for 20 years and have never seen an INTP in a position of power. Maybe they hid it well, but consider the study recently linked on the AA thread which sees ~6% of software engineers as INTP's. I agree with this, they're over represented compared to the general population (~3%) but you mostly find S types here. The INTP's you do find invariably are deep in the engineering department, and not interested in leaving it. They're hard to spot too, like looking for a black hole you have to see the absence of something rather than the presence.

** With Ben Stein you have a person who is stupidly confident in himself, despite getting his nose rubbed in his mistakes, he doesn't change his course. I absolutely do not see how an INTP - along with INFP's as one of the most self doubting types, would continue to make mistakes and be that blandly confident in his prognostications. Especially around religion, even the religious INTP's (if there are any) are going to harbor some doubt. Not Stein, who was willing to trick Richard Dawkins and misrepresent him on film. I have some doubts about Dawkins too, but that's not nearly as clear.

 

[Architect]

I agree, to the degree that celebrities in general are rewarded to cultivate a particular image via which they interact with the populace, which can differ significantly from their relaxed/private image, depending.

Also, I think too much public-figure typing involves recognizing and grabbing a smattering of details of interest to the typer, versus triangulating upon and clarifying the motivations and overall strategies of the person in question. The definition of the object is calculated by the perspective of the observer, rather than being generated from the object itself.

Precisely.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

I agree, to the degree that celebrities in general are rewarded to cultivate a particular image via which they interact with the populace, which can differ significantly from their relaxed/private image, depending.

Also, I think too much public-figure typing involves recognizing and grabbing a smattering of details of interest to the typer, versus triangulating upon and clarifying the motivations and overall strategies of the person in question. The definition of the object is calculated by the perspective of the observer, rather than being generated from the object itself.

You put my thought into better words. Ty

 

[Cherry Cola]

Possibly, but I was prompted by happening to see the Sergey and Larry INTP characterization in particular. I'm quite sure they're wrong on those two, and I also know it's futile to tell them otherwise.

However I'm curious to hear what their methodology is, please explain.

They like do functional analysis and like look up material and stuff? The typical methodology. Point is, most lists of celebrities and their types are based on nothing but ctrl c+v; however, this thread points a finger at celebritytypes.com, calling them a "particularly bad example", which simply isn't true.

 

[CT-]

We can always discuss this or that assessment.

The point is that you said that we were stuck in our views after "many discussions" and I ask you: What discussions? Where have you experienced us as closed and dismissive?

"vanity searches" make the world go 'round.

We prefer to think of them as 'customer service searches.'

 

[Turniphead]

While we are complaining...

What I want to know is why Celebrity Types puts black backgrounds behind certain people.

I'm assuming they are trying to impose some sort of moral judgements about them, but why do it in the first place? Seems pointless and juvenile.

 

[sushi]

its run by an INTJ , who is incapable of admitting wrong. although some are right, i would say they are right about 60%.

 

[Cherry Cola]

While we are complaining...

What I want to know is why Celebrity Types puts black backgrounds behind certain people.

I'm assuming they are trying to impose some sort of moral judgements about them, but why do it in the first place? Seems pointless and juvenile.

I want to know why the INFPs don't have any blackbackgrounded-bastards :O

 

[Architect]

We can always discuss this or that assessment.

The point is that you said that we were stuck in our views after "many discussions" and I ask you: What discussions? Where have you experienced us as closed and dismissive?

I mention that above. I had a discussion with somebody at your site a year or two ago. Email, PM's on this site, I don't recall, but it was talking about Ben Stein. Whoever it was stuck to their guns on Stein.

I'm not going to bother digging up the original discussion wherever it is, but I already did find references in other PM's so I'm not misremembering it. However it's not a big deal - I'll retract the allegation if you like. Because you guys are willing to talk, even if you are convinced of your position.

its run by an INTJ , who is incapable of admitting wrong. although some are right, i would say they are right about 60%.

Actually that is true about INTJ's, I've noticed they are the least able to change their minds once they've decided something.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Always thought Marx was INTP.
Not sure if Stephen Hawking was INTJ may have been ENTJ all along.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Always thought Marx was INTP.

Yes, i believe his twisted sense of humor is too far off from INTJ.

 

[CT-]

What I want to know is why Celebrity Types puts black backgrounds behind certain people.

We once had no black boxes and the audience went out of control with people only talking and focusing on that. It really took a lot away from typology.

We'd prefer to leave judgment to others, but the practical results of doing so, when we did, were too grave. We want to promote an interest in psychology and that was unfortunately not something that we were furthering when we were "all white."

You are not alone (although you people who share our sentiments *are* a minority). Maybe, in the end, we'll have a functionality wherein the user can enable/disable the boxes.

So, erm... can anyone on here code?

its run by an INTJ

Uhhm, no, not exactly.

I mention that above. I had a discussion with somebody at your site a year or two ago. Email, PM's on this site, I don't recall, but it was talking about Ben Stein. Whoever it was stuck to their guns on Stein.

But one exchange on Ben Stein is not exactly "many discussions."

Anyway, we're okay if you're okay. We recognize that it can indeed seem "futile" not to have one's feedback punch through and actually end up revising the site's content once you've taken the time.

However, as another poster says we have a definite, homogenous method and some feedback, while correct on its own premises, will not fit with our operationalization of Jungian typology.

For example, we are all about Jung, Myers, von Franz and van der Hoop. Everything else carries less weight with us. IIRC (and I really apologize if this is not true) you accept that facial characteristics and body language can be used to determine type yet none of the four theoreticians we just mentioned ever agreed to that. In the same vein, you appear to think that INTP and narcissism/achievement striving is an a priori invalid combination. We don't.

Now I don't presume to know your methodology beyond what I can glance from this thread, but it seems that you think that type is about a lot more than ways of structuring information in the psyche (functions). I say this because you note that: "I've worked around Silicon Valley and tech companies for 20 years and have never seen an INTP in a position of power," which would seem to indicate that you take type to be something far broader and more predictive that we do.

By contrast, our own "minimalist" view of type is espoused here:

Personality is an unsolved puzzle, and Jungian typology is but a tiny piece of that puzzle. It says something about the arrangement of the four functions and their orientations. All sorts of other factors that pertain to the personality are, in effect, irrelevant to the system. Even if you know everything about Jungian typology you will still fail if you don’t know anything about any other aspects of personality. You will suffer from a sort of psychological myopia where you attempt to cram everything you observe into type. But as type is just one piece of the puzzle you will also observe some things that do not pertain to type, and if you don’t know what these other traits are, they will cloud your assessment of type.

From here.

PS: Though I cannot speak for the entire admin team I have also worked in ScValley and yes - there are many S types there.

 

[sushi]

^ the above post just kind of prove my point.

mbti and personality is highly subjective from third person. the only person who can verify it is first person or the actual person taking the test. but still....
Anyway, this according to celebrity types, this is an esfp, which i think is way off. *cough*Ti*cough*

Larry ellison

 

[Reluctantly]

Huh. Wonder how they got ESFP.

 

[sushi]

Huh. Wonder how they got ESFP.

They probably confuse ADHD with SeFi, or the guy typing him was on crack.

 

[BigApplePi]

That is true, however the Einstein INFJ comment was directed at Pod'Lair, who mistyped him as such. My point was that they have the best track record as far as I know, even though their approach has many other problems.

Architect. If there are mistakes I'm interested in the possibilities of why.

Try this. I will accept your judgment of Einstein as INTP especially because you are close to knowing what he is like. I think of Pod'Lair as being good at judging because they are well studied on immediate visual sensory cues. Those are direct and can be evaluated in that way. I did notice (didn't I once provide some links to Einstein's on film for what I recall was an attempt at evaluation?) that Einstein on occasion had a warm public persona ... those eyes and warm face. They could have been what the Pod'Lairians where reading. They just didn't get inside the man because that's not what they do. They did what they do best: look at the outside presentation.

I have an additional theory. I person has a basic "home" temperament ... the temperament they are most comfortable with. Introverts would be harder to see. Who is doing the judging? A "J" evaluator could be guilty of judging accurately but judging too narrowly. They could be judging Einstein's warm face. A "P" judging would be more aloof and look further. Think of the Pod'Lairian founder. He is going to judge by his own lens. If I were being evaluated I would want to know who is doing the judging and what they bring to the table.

 

[fnordprefect]

From what I've seen CelebTypes seems to type people by shallow behavioral stereotypes rather than any sort of nuanced understanding of the functions. In other words, they're not really capable of seeing past a persona. And we all know that public figures are among the best at weaving elaborate public personalities that may in fact be quite contrary to their natural temperamental state.

Regarding PL's typing of some of the people Architect mentioned in the OP, I think it's something along these lines (type/mojo correlations of course ):

Tina Fey - INTJ
Ben Stein - INTJ
Larry Page - INFJ
Sergey Brin - ENFP

If PL's theory holds any weight, then the public personalities that we see from many of these people may relate more to their modulation functions (3,4) than their momentum (1,2). Without the momentum/modulation concept, a lot of their typings make little sense from a vanilla typology perspective. The latter approach basically approximates a bunch of PROBABLE stereotype-based profiles based only demonstrable behaviors that typologists associate with the top two functions of each type.

Finally, on Einstein as INFJ, without making an absolute declarations of my own, I don't think that reading is TOO far-fetched...especially if we again entertaining the Ti modulation concept. Other than that, I'll leave ol' Al in the "agree to disagree" bin indefinitely

 

[TBerg]

I think one of the issues is that people might view a more matured INTP as an INFJ. It is possible for an INTP to have rounded him/herself out to the point at which their Fe is almost as strong as a budding auxiliary Ne. With this in mind, we must look at the person in their teenage and young adult years to figure out their key struggles and instinctual pursuits. And our data must be genuine, from real life experiences with family and friends, rather than personas filtered through artificial media encounters.

 

[CT-]

From what I've seen CelebTypes seems to type people by shallow behavioral stereotypes rather than any sort of nuanced understanding of the functions.

It's funny how you fault us for supposedly being behavioristic and then espouse PL as an alternative when PL are overtly behavioristic in their approach.

As they say:

Coming from MBTI you still have the idea that to truly read into how a person is wired, you would have to read their mind, which is understandable, but that is actually not necessary. ... You don't need to be able to read a Nai Alpha's mind to know they are Nai Alpha for the same reason you don't need to read a Hawk's mind to know they are a carnivore. Source.

You may deem us behavioristic, but whether there's any truth to that or not, it is never the less a fact that we have pioneered the argument that behaviorism should not be used in Jungian typology again and again (and again and again).

It would probably help your argument if you quoted some actual instances of us using behaviorist logic from any of the 100+ articles we have published on the topic.

 

[Cherry Cola]

This thread stinks of internal forum elitism.

Why do people keep citing Pod Lair as some kind of good example?

They typed a fuckton of celebs without spending much time on each typing if you average it out.

Their list is so bad that you can look at it once and know that whatever they were doing to make the list isn't working.

Now I know that they use visual cues. A dubious method which has hitherto failed to impress me in any instance. What bothers me even more is how visual typers will use visual cues not to complement traditional typing methods, rather they think they can do it by visual cues only. And even worse, once done they usually don't even bother to check if their visual typing results match the results they'd get through traditional typing. You know the shit that works, and isn't a hastily put together new method fashioned into a theory of everything, and put forth primarily by a semi-cult of adolescent hubris-struck pseudo-intellectuals?

Visual typing doesn't need to be taken seriously, until its practitioners do and can back their claims up there's no reason for anyone else to.

And besides even if it did have some merit to it (which frankly, theoretically I think it should..) it seems highly unlikely that the way these analyses work atm could ever yield accurate results. Rather, the visual cues would reveal themselves in patterns which can be studied over time.

In any case the dissing of celebritytypes here sucks dick and is total fail. Pretty much all of you wouldn't have a chance in hell at putting together a similar list; pointing fingers at a few weird typings doesn't really make up much of a point.

And finally, again: Pod Lairs list is EXTREMELY bad, and their methodology is in a fetal stage.

 

[Latte]

In any case the dissing of celebritytypes here sucks dick and is total fail.

Spoiler

 

[QuickTwist]

I was about to post solely to share my opinion that this topic is a complete bore... The I saw the comic. Well done.