The Office (US version)

[Logos]

It's good to know you can find your way home.

But shall we compare the number of people in this thread who have said Jim is an ENTp vs. everyone else (which is just you by the way)? :wink:

Okay, but if you want to do that you'd have to ask everyone else who knows socionics to get a fair answer.

And how many would it take for you? And you do realize how many of your other typings of characters on the Office are also very suspect?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Joy, you look quite nice in that picture.

[Kristiina]

hey, I just wanted to mention that there is no way that Michael Scott is ESTp. He tries to behave like an ENFj, but - you see - ESTps don't try to behave like ENFjs. And he doesn't have Se. At least a person with Se HA would notice that much.
He does show clear signs of trying to be Fe, and more clearly, trying to seem like an ENFj. And he seems like a person who doesn't have any Si, so he must have Ni, so the first guess that he's ENTj is most probably correct.

Oh, and just in case you thought SOMEONE ELSE was ESTp, then.... oooooops.
Ok, that's all.

[Gilly]

I think the "good" parts of Se don't show through in Michael Scott because it's an Alpha-skewed interpretation of the type.

[Joy]

thanks :-)

[Joy]

What about Jan?

The scene in the restaurant with Jan, Michael, and their client might be an exaggerated example of Merry vs. Serious.

[Logos]

What about Jan?

The scene in the restaurant with Jan, Michael, and their client might be an exaggerated example of Merry vs. Serious.

I doubt it. While Jan may be a Serious type, I do not think that restaurant scene at Chili's is supposed to be demonstrative of that dichotomy. Because Michael showed that he was quite serious about making the sell, and that he knew just the right approach to take with this particular client. Obviously the creators of The Office do not know about Socionics, but I do not think that what they were trying to show here was a Merry vs. Serious dichotomy but simply that although Michael Scott is a pretty bad boss, he is A) a really incredible salesman with some (or to show that he does have actual good qualities), and B) more aware of the local scene of Scranton than the corporate office of NY.

[Joy]

What about Jan?

The scene in the restaurant with Jan, Michael, and their client might be an exaggerated example of Merry vs. Serious.

I doubt it. While Jan may be a Serious type, I do not think that restaurant scene at Chili's is supposed to be demonstrative of that dichotomy. Because Michael showed that he was quite serious about making the sell, and that he knew just the right approach to take with this particular client. Obviously the creators of The Office do not know about Socionics, but I do not think that what they were trying to show here was a Merry vs. Serious dichotomy but simply that although Michael Scott is a pretty bad boss, he is A) a really incredible salesman with some (or to show that he does have actual good qualities), and B) more aware of the local scene of Scranton than the corporate office of NY.

The impression I got was that while he did want to get the contract, he preferred to play first and have a good time joking around for hours and then minimize the amount of time spent talking about work stuff (Merry types do work ). He was lucky that the client responded well... He repeatedly demonstrates that he has no concept at all of how others feel about his behavior or what they want, so there's no way he could have known what it would take to close that deal. He would have acted that way even if his client felt the same way Jan did about his behavior.

From what I understand, the Merry vs. Serious dichotomy is in large part about familiarity (it's also about "Fun" or "Play" vs. "Leisure" or "Recreation". Serious types need a reason to treat someone with familiarity (for the most part). Merry types may see formality (over familiarity) or a strictly business attitude (even in a work environment) as being unfriendly or cold, even if they aren't necessarily good at creating a sense of familiarity themselves. Merry types also care more about "having fun", generally speaking.

Examples

Cheerful (subjectivists):
"Fun – lot's of emotions... company of friends, we exchange news, possibly go have a bite to eat, sing songs" "Fun – this is involvement, when you actively participate. When you look or read – these are instructions, fun – this is active, a state of constant excitement, something one cannot confuse with leisure/rest (a slack state)... perhaps fun for me it is – exciting contact, dialogue that (As oppose to a fight, quarrel and so on) bonds" "Reading books, opera – this is not fun... fun – lots of vitality" "Fun – a state of liberation where things do not seem serious" "Fun is pleasure, recklessness, everyone participates, dropping of boundaries" "If I'm in a company of new people and we do not introduce ourselves this to me has nothing to so with getting to know each other" "The majority of people with whom I "fray" - I do not know their name" "Anyone can follow established rules on how to engage contact, but it does not mean that you will actually get acquainted" "For me in company of others names are not important" "Only after a weak I remember what his name was even though we had already passionately kissed (About meeting her future husband)" "When I see that someone does something wrong, has problems with something, I first have to check if that is any of my business. If it concerns me, then my first reaction – to step back and give the proper way to "troubled person"... I have my own ideas on how to do things, "a mind of my own", as should be, but so does everyone else" "First you place the axe, then you explain why you did so" "I have considered what has been stated and conclude that is does concert to the given theme/topic"

Serious (objectivists):
"It is difficult for me to differentiate activity/work from fun. Fun... it is difficult to define" "I approach everything seriously, even rest" "It is always possible to find something прикольное in seriousness and vice versa" "To study/work is necessarily fun. Work without an entertainment element is impossible" "What constitutes "fun" – is not clear, what leisure is – that is clear, what is entertainment – that is as well" "It is important that I get introduced when I'm in company of people I never met before, or better yet, that they have been told a little about myself" "I engage other people in the manner suggested to me, I do not engage them if I do not know whether it will be "pleasant"" "I don't like it when other people "thrust" themselves upon me or when it is done on other people: suddenly my aunt, which I'm seeing for the first time, starts calling me her little "sugar-root" or some other thing like "[insert mushy expression here]" and so on." "The name is important, if a person does not say their name it often means that they do not want to have the conversation" "If it is done the wrong way? Oy! It is easier for me to grab it and do it myself then to waste my time explaining. In my opinion there is only one way to "hammer a nail"" "There are things with which it is clearly observable what is ineffective and if there are better ways of doing it. It's very irritating when a person consistently fails to see this and just keeps "hammering the nail backwards"" "When I see something performed "inappropriately" it makes my stomach churn" "It's great punishment when I see something that clearly contradicts common sense and I can do nothing about it. If I can interfere with the situation – I do, regardless if whether or not if it concerns me" "The methods/ways used by a person that steam from their experience (Are in their framework) – this is not the same thing as objective methods/ways of doing things (Evidenced by the results)"

I had written more about the Merry vs. Serious dichotomy, but I think I'll post that in the thread about it instead of here. And perhaps another time.

[Logos]

The impression I got was that while he did want to get the contract, he preferred to play first and have a good time joking around for hours and then minimize the amount of time spent talking about work stuff (Merry types do work ).

Then you completely missed the point.

He was lucky that the client responded well...He repeatedly demonstrates that he has no concept at all of how others feel about his behavior or what they want, so there's no way he could have known what it would take to close that deal. He would have acted that way even if his client felt the same way Jan did about his behavior.

Not really. He seemed to know the preferred setting of the meeting, was wanting Jan to be prepared with a "password" type out for recovery in a conversation, and knew exactly what to say in the end to seal the deal. Michael's motion to shut Jan up at the end seems to indicate that Michael knew exactly what he was doing in there to get the deal. The point was (and one that will be continually repeated in the series) is that while he is a terrible boss in terms of understanding his employees, he is an incredible salesman who was promoted to upper management.

[Joy]

When doesn't he act like that though?

I'm sure he offends a whole lot of clients as well as impressing and making sales with others. He wouldn't have acted like Jan had the client preferred that type of demeanor. And I have no clue how the hell he got into management.

[Logos]

When doesn't he act like that though?

Very rarely, but when it comes to making sales, he is fairly serious (not in the Socionics understanding of the term though).

I'm sure he offends a whole lot of clients as well as impressing and making sales with others.

Well, yes, he does offend a fair share of people, but then again that is just Michael Scott being Michael Scott and not necessarily an ESTp being an ESTp. He even offends those he successfully sells to (see the phone conversation with the librarian in the very first scene of episode one).

He wouldn't have acted like Jan had the client preferred that type of demeanor.

For the sake of the sale, he might not have acted like Jan, but he might have kept (relatively) quiet. Again, he changed the location of the meeting to match the image of the company (small time, but concerned about local issues) he wanted to establish with the client, which he knew ahead of time was a representative of the local county school system. So he showed that he knew what he was getting into and that Jan did not.

And I have no clue how the hell he got into management.

Previous boss retired, and he was the top salesman. He was thereby promoted to the regional manager.

[Joy]

You must be talking about something I haven't yet seen.

[Logos]

Well what type do you think Jan is? ENTj?

[Joy]

Hard to tell because we only see her around Michael. She's most likely a Gamma/Delta rational, I know I would sure as fuck act like that around him (minus what happened at the end of that episode).

[Logos]

Hard to tell because we only see her around Michael. She's most likely a Gamma/Delta rational, I know I would sure as fuck act like that around him (minus what happened at the end of that episode).

Okay, well I will avoid giving away spoilers like the plague. I am not saying that she is an ENTj, but keep in mind that not all ENTjs would necessarily act like you would.

[Joy]

Hard to tell because we only see her around Michael. She's most likely a Gamma/Delta rational, I know I would sure as fuck act like that around him (minus what happened at the end of that episode).

Okay, well I will avoid giving away spoilers like the plague.

ty

I am not saying that she is an ENTj, but keep in mind that not all ENTjs would necessarily act like you would.

Yeah, and it's fiction anyways. I don't know anyone who acts like him. The only one who comes even close is my mom, but she's super religious.

[olduser]

this thread has been done i am sure.
obvious types:

dwight entj
angela isfj
creed istj
jim delta
pam delta
kelly esfj? seriously everything wrong about Fe.

so what were the other conclusions?

[Logos]

Michael Scott: SLE
Jim Halpert: ILE
Pam Beesley: SEI
Ryan Howard: LIE
Angela Martin: ESI
Dwight Schrute: LSI
Kelly: ESE
Phyllis: EII

[ArchonAlarion]

sorry if this counts as a necro.

I f'in love this show.

Ones Im almost positive about
Michael: EIE
Dwight: LIE
Angela: ESI
Kelly: ESE

Ones Im not sure about
Creed: LSI
Jim: ILE, IEE
Pam: SEI, EII
Toby: EII?
Ryan: SEE, SLE, LIE
Phyllis: EII (throwin it out there)
Andy: no f'ing clue extraverted something.

[717495]

I know a lot of Gammas who watch this show. Anyone?

I've never really cared for it, I guess it's just a matter of taste, not quadra.

[Logos]

I watched the Office for the first three seasons. I lost interest afterward, since I thought that the Season 3 Finale was a perfectly legitimate way to end the series.

[eunice]

I watched the Office for the first three seasons. I lost interest afterward, since I thought that the Season 3 Finale was a perfectly legitimate way to end the series.

The series went downhill imo. It should not have dragged on till now.

[xerx]

Just some guesses.

Michael: SEE: Reacts strongly to losing power and prestige. Very well-intentioned guy but can't predict the consequences of his actions. Doesn't really understand proper social dynamics and comes on really strong as a result. Good at making personal connections with clients. Brash, unpredictable, maverick.

Dwight: ILI: Sycophant, worships people who have power. Really strange. Esoteric knowledge.

Jim: ILE or IEE: Takes the same thing to lunch everyday. Is really conservative about his food. Sort of hard to type though.

Pam: SEI

Angela: ESI: Knows exactly which people she doesn't like (who are usually incompetent in ) and enforces this idea on them.

[Krig the Viking]

Just some guesses.

Michael: SEE: Reacts strongly to losing power and prestige. Very well-intentioned guy but can't predict the consequences of his actions. Doesn't really understand proper social dynamics and comes on really strong as a result. Good at making personal connections with clients. Brash, unpredictable, maverick.

Dwight: ILI: Sycophant, worships people who have power. Really strange. Esoteric knowledge.

Jim: ILE or IEE: Takes the same thing to lunch everyday. Is really conservative about his food. Sort of hard to type though.

Pam: SEI

Angela: ESI: Knows exactly which people she doesn't like (who are usually incompetent in ) and enforces this idea on them.

I agree with all of those, though I'm more sure Jim is ILE -- he's the Joker variety, rather than the Spastic Geek variety.

Some more:
Toby: LII. He's always undercutting Michael's insane ideas with logic. This explains Michael's seething hatred for him. Toby is also extremely intimidated by Michael. Plus, he secretly had a crush on Pam, the SEI.
Stanley: LSI. Supervises Michael, sees him as childish and annoying, but not threatening like Toby.
Phyllis: EII. Kind and sensitive. Supervised by Michael, who constantly and obliviously tramples on her Vulnerable Se (calling her ugly, etc.). Also, she's happily married to Bob Vance, Vance Refridgeration, who is a blatant LSE.
Kevin: SEI. Very comfort and physical pleasure oriented, soft-hearted.
Kelly: a lot of people type her ESE, but I don't see it. She's too materialistic and Se-oriented. I would guess an immature EIE.
Andy: Possibly another ILE?
Erin: Possibly another SEI? Note the parallels between their relationship and Jim and Pam's.
Darryl: SLI. So SLI.
David Wallace: LIE?

Also, does anybody have any idea what type Holly is? I want to say ILI, just because she and Michael seem so right together, but if she's ILI, it's a variant I've never seen before. However, my experience with Gammas is somewhat lacking compared to the other Quadras, so I don't know.

[Beautiful sky]

I hate watching this show; I did it for about 10 seconds and knew it wasn't for me. The content is not humorous, it's not entertaining; it's unintelligent and unenlightening in many regards, just crummy.

[Krig the Viking]

I hate watching this show; I did it for about 10 seconds and knew it wasn't for me. The content is not humorous, it's not entertaining; it's unintelligent and unenlightening in many regards, just crummy.

I'm sorry that 10 seconds of content was not humorous, entertaining, intelligent, enlightening, and non-crummy enough for you. You must have watched the wrong 10 seconds...

[Marie84]

Anyone know what type Ryan is?

[Creepy-bg]

what about Creed?

and I never got the impression that Toby was intimidated by Michael.

[xerx]

what about Creed?

and I never got the impression that Toby was intimidated by Michael.

I'd guess IEI. He seems more like an intuitive than a sensor, and most of his stunts are about trying to get out of work or exploit the system somehow to get out of doing work. I considered Te demonstrative, but an ILE would find it easier to do the work quickly to get it out of the way instead of jump through so many hoops to get rid of it.

[Krig the Viking]

Anyone know what type Ryan is?

I get the vague impression of some kind of Te type. LIE? LSE?

and I never got the impression that Toby was intimidated by Michael.

Really? He like, completely shuts down when Michael is around. He's a dry, hollow husk of a man whose will has been almost completely broken...

I'd guess IEI. He seems more like an intuitive than a sensor, and most of his stunts are about trying to get out of work or exploit the system somehow to get out of doing work. I considered Te demonstrative, but an ILE would find it easier to do the work quickly to get it out of the way instead of jump through so many hoops to get rid of it.

That... makes sense. I couldn't figure him out for the longest time. He's like the more aggressive, less mellow variant of IEI.

[Azeroffs]

Also, does anybody have any idea what type Holly is? I want to say ILI, just because she and Michael seem so right together, but if she's ILI, it's a variant I've never seen before. However, my experience with Gammas is somewhat lacking compared to the other Quadras, so I don't know.

I'm pretty sure Holly is a feeler. I'm tempted to say EII.

[xerx]

That... makes sense. I couldn't figure him out for the longest time. He's like the more aggressive, less mellow variant of IEI.

Would another Fe ego make more sense then? Or another type altogether?

[Krig the Viking]

Would another Fe ego make more sense then? Or another type altogether?

No, I was agreeing with you! There are more mellow IEIs like redbaron and silverchris, and more aggressive IEIs like crazedrat and thePirate, and Creed seems like an example of the latter. That's my immediate intuitive response, anyway.

[Creepy-bg]

I always felt like Toby just saw Michael as not even worth the effort. The looks he gives him are more like that to me than being intimidated.

[Krig the Viking]

I always felt like Toby just saw Michael as not even worth the effort. The looks he gives him are more like exasperation (in Toby's defeated way) than being intimidated imo.

Hmm. I can see where you're coming from. Still, the others in the office all stand up to Michael from time to time, whereas Toby never does. Michael just walks all over him.

Stanley I would see as a better example of someone who gets exasperated with Michael, without being intimidated. Toby, on the other hand, is afraid to confront Michael in any way, because he knows that Michael's irrational behaviour will wind up making things even worse for him. He can't just plow through unaffected like Stanley. So he keeps his head down and tries to avoid attracting Michael's attention for the most part.

[Creepy-bg]

Hmm. I can see where you're coming from. Still, the others in the office all stand up to Michael from time to time, whereas Toby never does. Michael just walks all over him.

Stanley I would see as a better example of someone who gets exasperated with Michael, without being intimidated. Toby, on the other hand, is afraid to confront Michael in any way, because he knows that Michael's irrational behaviour will wind up making things even worse for him. He can't just plow through unaffected like Stanley. So he keeps his head down and tries to avoid attracting Michael's attention for the most part.

okay. yeah... I see your point.

[Krig the Viking]

Just some guesses.

Michael: SEE: Reacts strongly to losing power and prestige. Very well-intentioned guy but can't predict the consequences of his actions. Doesn't really understand proper social dynamics and comes on really strong as a result. Good at making personal connections with clients. Brash, unpredictable, maverick.

Dwight: ILI: Sycophant, worships people who have power. Really strange. Esoteric knowledge.

Jim: ILE or IEE: Takes the same thing to lunch everyday. Is really conservative about his food. Sort of hard to type though.

Pam: SEI

Angela: ESI: Knows exactly which people she doesn't like (who are usually incompetent in ) and enforces this idea on them.

I agree with all of those, though I'm more sure Jim is ILE -- he's the Joker variety, rather than the Spastic Geek variety.

Some more:
Toby: LII. He's always undercutting Michael's insane ideas with logic. This explains Michael's seething hatred for him. Toby is also extremely intimidated by Michael. Plus, he secretly had a crush on Pam, the SEI.
Stanley: LSI. Supervises Michael, sees him as childish and annoying, but not threatening like Toby.
Phyllis: EII. Kind and sensitive. Supervised by Michael, who constantly and obliviously tramples on her Vulnerable Se (calling her ugly, etc.). Also, she's happily married to Bob Vance, Vance Refridgeration, who is a blatant LSE.
Kevin: SEI. Very comfort and physical pleasure oriented, soft-hearted.
Kelly: a lot of people type her ESE, but I don't see it. She's too materialistic and Se-oriented. I would guess an immature EIE.
Andy: Possibly another ILE?
Erin: Possibly another SEI? Note the parallels between their relationship and Jim and Pam's.
Darryl: SLI. So SLI.
David Wallace: LIE?

Also, does anybody have any idea what type Holly is? I want to say ILI, just because she and Michael seem so right together, but if she's ILI, it's a variant I've never seen before. However, my experience with Gammas is somewhat lacking compared to the other Quadras, so I don't know.

Okay, so I just figured a bunch of stuff out, and therefore disagree with several of my previous typings.

It started with Dwight. Thinking about his relationship to Michael, I realized that him being Michael's Supervisee made a lot of sense -- Dwight is always trying to suck up to Michael, but Michael mostly doesn't care about Dwight, and/or finds him annoying. Then I realized that this would make Michael EIE, which was my secondary typing for him already, and two independent lines of reasoning leading to the same conclusion is always a good sign. But Michael very clearly Conflicts with Toby, whom I had typed as LII, and if Michael was EIE they would be Semi-Duality, which didn't make any sense. That was one of the main reasons I thought EIE didn't work for Michael. But this time I changed tactics, and asked myself "What if Toby is actually SLI, and therefore the Conflictor of EIE Michael?" That made some sense. So I did a search on Toby here at the16types, to see what other people thought. To my embarrassment, almost everyone else who had an opinion already thought that Toby was SLI.

This configuration makes sense on further levels: Pam Supervises Michael, and Jim Benefits him. Out of everyone in the office, Jim and Pam are really the only ones who can control Michael with any degree of success. It also makes Toby Kindred and Semi-Duality with Jim and Pam, a little further away than Activation and Mirror, which seemed too close for how their relationships are depicted. It puts Toby closer to Phyllis and Bob Vance, Vance Refrigeration, which seems to fit pretty well intuitively.

Also, this makes it more likely that Kelly is SEE instead of EIE, since I don't think she and Michael are the same type, and I was sure that both of them were one or the other. This makes sense, because Kelly is frequently mis-typed as ESE, and my impression is that SEE/ESE is a more common mistake than EIE/ESE.

Also, I was pretty sure Holly wasn't ILI, so that works. But LSI doesn't really seem right either, I dunno.

So anyway, here are my current typings for the show:

Michael: C-EIE (probably SEE subtype)
Dwight: D-ILI
Jim: H-ILE
Pam: C-SEI
Toby: N-SLI

Angela: ESI
Phyllis: EII
Bob Vance, Vance Refrigeration: LSE
Kevin: H-SEI
Kelly: SEE
David Wallace: Classic LIE.
Creed: ILI? I'm still not really convinced of that.
Stanley: LSI? This makes somewhat less sense if Michael is EIE. They don't seem like Duality.
Darryl: SLI? Like Stanley, the intertype with Michael as EIE doesn't seem to fit as well. SEI maybe?

Andy: Unknown. ILE?
Erin: Unknown. SEI?
Holly: Unknown, but probably Merry.
Oscar: Unknown.

[Linas]

So the man in this bitch is ENTj??? This is an epic show, it's just that it's hard to watch for longer than 15 minutes

[ladyinred]

Okay, so I just figured a bunch of stuff out, and therefore disagree with several of my previous typings.

It started with Dwight. Thinking about his relationship to Michael, I realized that him being Michael's Supervisee made a lot of sense -- Dwight is always trying to suck up to Michael, but Michael mostly doesn't care about Dwight, and/or finds him annoying. Then I realized that this would make Michael EIE, which was my secondary typing for him already, and two independent lines of reasoning leading to the same conclusion is always a good sign. But Michael very clearly Conflicts with Toby, whom I had typed as LII, and if Michael was EIE they would be Semi-Duality, which didn't make any sense. That was one of the main reasons I thought EIE didn't work for Michael. But this time I changed tactics, and asked myself "What if Toby is actually SLI, and therefore the Conflictor of EIE Michael?" That made some sense. So I did a search on Toby here at the16types, to see what other people thought. To my embarrassment, almost everyone else who had an opinion already thought that Toby was SLI.

This configuration makes sense on further levels: Pam Supervises Michael, and Jim Benefits him. Out of everyone in the office, Jim and Pam are really the only ones who can control Michael with any degree of success. It also makes Toby Kindred and Semi-Duality with Jim and Pam, a little further away than Activation and Mirror, which seemed too close for how their relationships are depicted. It puts Toby closer to Phyllis and Bob Vance, Vance Refrigeration, which seems to fit pretty well intuitively.

Also, this makes it more likely that Kelly is SEE instead of EIE, since I don't think she and Michael are the same type, and I was sure that both of them were one or the other. This makes sense, because Kelly is frequently mis-typed as ESE, and my impression is that SEE/ESE is a more common mistake than EIE/ESE.

Also, I was pretty sure Holly wasn't ILI, so that works. But LSI doesn't really seem right either, I dunno.

So anyway, here are my current typings for the show:

Michael: C-EIE (probably SEE subtype)
Dwight: D-ILI
Jim: H-ILE
Pam: C-SEI
Toby: N-SLI

Angela: ESI
Phyllis: EII
Bob Vance, Vance Refrigeration: LSE
Kevin: H-SEI
Kelly: SEE
David Wallace: Classic LIE.
Creed: ILI? I'm still not really convinced of that.
Stanley: LSI? This makes somewhat less sense if Michael is EIE. They don't seem like Duality.
Darryl: SLI? Like Stanley, the intertype with Michael as EIE doesn't seem to fit as well. SEI maybe?

Andy: Unknown. ILE?
Erin: Unknown. SEI?
Holly: Unknown, but probably Merry.
Oscar: Unknown.

i very much like your reasoning here, i had long been debated about Michael to be SLE or EIE, you seem to put forth good argument for EIE here.

just curious, do you still see Micael is EIE??

[marooned]

I hadn't really understood the suggestion of SEE for Michael as he always seemed very to me (ESE, ILE, EIE or something).