Index of Psychological Resources

Ah yes, the transcripts (added).

The site ( celebritytypes.com ) however, is twofold. Their articles are of high-quality while their readings are of really poor quality - due to the methodology they use.

As an example: www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2012/12/guide-to-jungian-function-axes/

Here they properly describe Ni/Se as having linearity of focus, and properly describe Ne/Si as being multifaceted. They also generally get it right for Fe/Ti and Fi/Te. But they use things like quotes from people to gauge their types (i.e. Kant)

They have typed celebrities and philosophers based on their most prominent philosophical works and what those works suggest about their psychology. But we fail to understand that, in an realistic sense, those philosophies — although certainly indicative more of some types than others when analyzed in a sterile, contextually free, fashion — could belong to a multitude of different types. Lacking a better instrument of measure, these philosophies became the cornerstone of their deductions and classifications of people’s types.

This is an understandable error, due to the absence of a quantifier. But personally I'd probably have just refrained from speculating on hundreds of celeb's types who I know little of personally. It ends up tying cognition to philosophy, which is not at all the case -- many Te types will hold Ti-esque philosophies and vice-versa, depending on what they have discovered about logos/ethos. (A Ti user may come to value and adhere to Te philosophy/empiricism more if they can be persuaded that such an approach is "most logical".)

If we are to make headway in typology, we must move away from typing by accomplishments, iconic quotes or philosophies and move to typing by a direct analysis of the person themselves through physiological and quantitative means. We must treat these people as dynamic, living subjects, rather than representatives of worldviews and paradigms.