Robin Williams

[Lady_X]

i don't know you're saying this to me.

 

[Totenkindly]

Those who use their intellect are sometimes accused of stereotyping simply for bringing up behavior as typological evidence. On the other hand, those who use "vibes" offer no evidence but their vibes.

Real typing basically integrates both, since "vibes" are essentially big picture feels and "behavior" provides specific instances that contribute to vibes. It places relevant representative observations within a properly prioritized broader framework.

Pretty much every field of knowledge operates this way in terms when people are problem-solving or trying to advance the field.

For example, here I think a J type for Williams is simply misguided. At every turn, he seems to flex to the situation at hand, and usually is seeking connection with others. Also, for a J, structure and restraint is easier; for a P, flexibility is easier.

Every anecdote I hear about Williams in relationships or in his work reflects a P nature; just tonight I read Hank Azaria's recollections of him while shooting "The Birdcage," which I saw last week and seemed like remarkable restrained work on Williams' part (since Nathan Lane was taking the "wild" role leaving Williams to provide a foundation). Azaria describes how Williams always respected Mike Nichols' direction and would do two straight takes on a scene to make him happy, but it seemed to drive him crazy to do it -- it was obviously something that he had a lot of trouble with. Then, he would ask for a take or two where he could just cut loose and do his thing, which Azaria referred to as Williams' "purging" himself because otherwise he would have gone crazy doing it straight. He could do it out of warmth towards his director, to make him happy; but he couldn't simply do it without repercussion; he needed his "flex crazy" time or go nuts.

 

[Mal12345]

Real typing basically integrates both, since "vibes" are essentially big picture feels and "behavior" provides specific instances that contribute to vibes. It places relevant representative observations within a properly prioritized broader framework.

Pretty much every field of knowledge operates this way in terms when people are problem-solving or trying to advance the field.

For example, here I think a J type for Williams is simply misguided. At every turn, he seems to flex to the situation at hand, and usually is seeking connection with others. Also, for a J, structure and restraint is easier; for a P, flexibility is easier.

Every anecdote I hear about Williams in relationships or in his work reflects a P nature; just tonight I read Hank Azaria's recollections of him while shooting "The Birdcage," which I saw last week and seemed like remarkable restrained work on Williams' part (since Nathan Lane was taking the "wild" role leaving Williams to provide a foundation). Azaria describes how Williams always respected Mike Nichols' direction and would do two straight takes on a scene to make him happy, but it seemed to drive him crazy to do it -- it was obviously something that he had a lot of trouble with. Then, he would ask for a take or two where he could just cut loose and do his thing, which Azaria referred to as Williams' "purging" himself because otherwise he would have gone crazy doing it straight. He could do it out of warmth towards his director, to make him happy; but he couldn't simply do it without repercussion; he needed his "flex crazy" time or go nuts.

The distinction I made was between vibes and intellect, not vibes and behavior. Behavior provides information to both, since even intuition ("vibes") is dependent upon the sensory content of behavior. The problem is, when someone points out the behavior and intellectually links it to a type, this is labeled 'stereotyping.' But when a vibe person does the same thing in a wordless way, in a way that possesses no explanatory power, then "stereotyping" is avoided.

With vibes, mere assertion (it's true because I feel it's true) becomes a substitute for methodical thinking. Vibes are acceptable to the extent that they provide hypotheses for further exploration, so of course they are important in trying to advance a field. But they are not the end; they, like logic and evidence-gathering, are only one means to an end.

 

[Starry]

"I've always believed he was ESFJ but doubt I would have said it unless you had because it becomes tiring for me to go up against all the stereotypes." Since my first week on this forum, I've been witness to a conflict between those who trust "vibes" and those who use their intellects to sort out types.

Those who use their intellect are sometimes accused of stereotyping simply for bringing up behavior as typological evidence. On the other hand, those who use "vibes" offer no evidence but their vibes.

Why did you use a direct quote from my post in this thread...without quoting me or mentioning me? It almost seems like you're a.) trying to spin a bullshit story about me and yet b.) don't possess the courage to confront me directly.

Why do you do this? You do realize that we've never, ever talked because I've never, ever thought you personally worth talking to. So why quote something of mine and follow it with bullshit? I'm quite interested.

 

[jlhinfj]

I am new to all of this but am wondering how people begin to presume to know enough about a public persona to type them?

I am a subject matter expert on the Medicare Provider Network and speak authoritativly on this subject. I also lead large animal fire rescue teams, barking orders and getting the job done.

Who would know by observing my behavior that when I am at a party I want to crawl into the walls and become invisible and that I often go weeks without leaving my house except to spend time with my horses (I work as a telecommuter). How can we observe someone's actions and assume to know their motivation?

 

[Totenkindly]

The distinction I made was between vibes and intellect, not vibes and behavior. Behavior provides information to both, since even intuition ("vibes") is dependent upon the sensory content of behavior. The problem is, when someone points out the behavior and intellectually links it to a type, this is labeled 'stereotyping.' But when a vibe person does the same thing in a wordless way, in a way that possesses no explanatory power, then "stereotyping" is avoided.

With vibes, mere assertion (it's true because I feel it's true) becomes a substitute for methodical thinking. Vibes are acceptable to the extent that they provide hypotheses for further exploration, so of course they are important in trying to advance a field. But they are not the end; they, like logic and evidence-gathering, are only one means to an end.

Usually a vibe is based on big-picture (i.e., multiple occurrence / venue broad triangulation) data points of behavior, whereas easier IMO for an intellectual assessment to cherry-pick data points. Find any three points (as we were taught in good old high-school essay class) and then detach completely from the data source because at that point you can write your paper and draw some kind of conclusion based solely on theory. It's far more susceptible to the flaw of taking limited experience and then spinning ideas in one's private tower without interacting with the subject, whereas big-picture forms of vibes insist that you continue to observe and interact for many many points of data to construct the picture.

The trouble with "vibes" is that it is also emotional in nature, and so the reader's feelings can taint that vibe -- personal feelings of "like/dislike," versus feelings of "completeness/sync". I think the former is more dangerous when it comes to assessing the truth of something, as we're trying to find an objective truth regardless of how we personally like/dislike the outcome.

As you suggest, they're both useful and I think a conclusion stronger when it melds both together.

 

[Mal12345]

I am new to all of this but am wondering how people begin to presume to know enough about a public persona to type them?

I am a subject matter expert on the Medicare Provider Network and speak authoritativly on this subject. I also lead large animal fire rescue teams, barking orders and getting the job done.

Who would know by observing my behavior that when I am at a party I want to crawl into the walls and become invisible and that I often go weeks without leaving my house except to spend time with my horses (I work as a telecommuter). How can we observe someone's actions and assume to know their motivation?

It's called VI - visual identification, the method by which you can be typed on sight.

 

[Mal12345]

Usually a vibe is based on big-picture (i.e., multiple occurrence / venue broad triangulation) data points of behavior, whereas easier IMO for an intellectual assessment to cherry-pick data points. Find any three points (as we were taught in good old high-school essay class) and then detach completely from the data source because at that point you can write your paper and draw some kind of conclusion based solely on theory. It's far more susceptible to the flaw of taking limited experience and then spinning ideas in one's private tower without interacting with the subject, whereas big-picture forms of vibes insist that you continue to observe and interact for many many points of data to construct the picture.

The trouble with "vibes" is that it is also emotional in nature, and so the reader's feelings can taint that vibe -- personal feelings of "like/dislike," versus feelings of "completeness/sync". I think the former is more dangerous when it comes to assessing the truth of something, as we're trying to find an objective truth regardless of how we personally like/dislike the outcome.

As you suggest, they're both useful and I think a conclusion stronger when it melds both together.

When personal (subjective) feelings of like/dislike become involved with intuitive vibes, this is evidence of an Fi-Si loop. That's because the liking/disliking is not a part of the vibe, it becomes an added content - a subjective feeling-sensation, not to be confused with an intuition.

The Fi-Si loop is very big on this forum. It is often the case that, since the person in the loop doesn't know that the source of the like/dislike reaction is subconscious - personal, not objective - the cause of the reaction is projected out onto the sense-object. Those who experience the feeling-sensation automatically believe that the object is the cause of the sensation and that, therefore, the object itself is either good ('because I like it') or bad ('because I dislike it').

 

[highlander]

Note: You Must Be Registered To Vote

 

[BenBaker]

Loved him as an actor, but I can't understand how you can still have money issues after such a career :s

 

[Stephano]

Manic on the outside and desperate on the inside. ENFP true story.

 

[redpilot]

Sir Robin Williams

Of course I don't know him personally. All I know is that I love all his movies especially his comedy films. He will always be remembered.

 

[Betty Blue]

Yah, just wanted to show some love and appreciation for him. Not sure of his type... loved him as mork and everything he did since..

He could be ENFJ

 

[Vasilisa]

I read the entire Time magazine commemorative edition devoted to him and my guess is ENFP.

 

[Mal12345]

Of course I don't know him personally. All I know is that I love all his movies especially his comedy films. He will always be remembered.

Robin Williams - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

 

[jixmixfix]

ENFP- If Robin Williams isn't ENFP I don't know who else is ENFP.

 

[1487610420]

DEAD

 

[laurapants08]

DEAD

I wish I didnt find this hilarious.

Now I feel like a horrible person.

Evil pants.... Evil

 

[Jaguar]

He described himself as introverted and quiet. (The public, manic, comedy act is what people are constantly typing.)

 

[synesthesia-]

Yeh, he's like our mascot .

HAHA so true