subject: Mbti Typology And Famous People [print this page] Carl Gustav Jung himself generally avoided of the "typing" famous people. While we do not know the nature of "tipical" signs until we see only their appearances, he believed, it is easy to fall into the mistake to get carried away "salon game." Moreover, Jung's closest disciples (Mary Louise von Franz, Daryl Sharp, James Hillman, Katharine Briggs, etc.), even disagreed over the type of the Young - either thinking (in Socionics - logical) with auxiliary introverted intuition, or intuitive introvert with the support of thinking (speaking in Socionics - whether "Robespierre", or "Balzac").
The creators of the first test based on Jungian typology (Gray and Wheelwright, Singer and Loomis, Myers and Briggs) preferred to believe that the type is the result of the test. It is clear that in this case, the question about the types of celebrities was extremely slippery and risky, because often what was decided to fill in a celebrity test. Only in the last 10-15 years, American "tipovedy" (type watchers), primarily D.U.Kirsi (David W. Keirsey) and the wife of Tiger (Paul Tieger & Barbara Barron-Tieger) have begun to develop methods for remote determination of the type t . is without the test, by observation or analysis of historical facts. However, their methods are not consistent with each other, and the difference between "galleries of celebrities," American typologists evident (see the references at the end of this page).
Ausra Augustina when created Socionics, did not know about the test and the Myers Briggs (the first publication of it in Russian only appeared in 1984, and before that he was not even mentioned in local publications in psychology, including translations), and so more about other, less well-known tests. Determine the signs of it had to be created almost from scratch, relying on the "Psychological Types" by Jung. As a rule, "typing" was as follows: the biography was analyzed for possible signs and Jungian compliance functions. But it was not easy - even non-existent type descriptions (!), And describe the features and functions were rather vague, multi-valued. However, if several different people assigned to the same type were found common psychological patterns in their behavior - it was considered good luck. Unfortunately, Ausra Augustinavichiute in the absence of evidence is often relied on physiognomy, if a celebrity is similar to a N M, which we previously attributed to the type X - hence, N is also related to the type of H. It is clear that the list of celebrities from Augustinavichiute were rather contradictory. But at least, the hypothesis was formulated.
Since the late 1980s, a detailed study of types of famous people engaged in Socionics from the Kiev club (at that time I.D.Vaysband created the first descriptions of 16 types of socionic). First of Aurin lists were excluded obvious "outsiders" who looked like some type of a separate feature of his character, but no more. According to some of the famous people were written detailed articles, research (here, the greatest contribution made Yu.Perel, I.Dolgopolskaya, A.Bukalov, O.Karpenko, V.Gulenko, G.Chikirisova, A.Nemirovsky, S.Taratuhin etc. .) Although the people of Kiev had agreed not to all "candidates", yet the discussion of Kiev became widely known in the world due to socionic annual conferences, producing socionic magazines, etc. At a conference Ausra Augustinavichiute recognized that its approach to the "typing" of celebrities was not always true.
Unfortunately, the first Ausrin lists, not reasoned, "typing", created for young socionists notion that "typed" - very easy. By the principle of "Ausra can, hence, we can" began to emerge, and the publication of the book with an increasingly long list of celebrities without any justification as to why they are of this, and not the type. We offer readers of these books to calculate the "index of irresponsibility," the author's original formula - count 'typed "in this book and divide it by the number of those in whose favor had been shown at least some factual basis. However, such tendency was also pleasant exceptions, which are listed below in the reference list.
