István Magyari-Beck

Personality as a Product of Man's Creativity

(in perspective of Creatology)

The main hypothesis of this paper

The author of this paper intends to outline a hypothesis according to which one’s own personality is a – or even the main – creative product of people. Personality development is an extensive (factual, horizontal etc.) and intensive (essential, vertical) process, where the above-mentioned two “movements” go hand in hand. That is the enlargement of personality leads to its deepening and vice versa, however, not in a machinelike way. It is also possible that certain persons are more superficial than other people, whose leading dimension is the vertical one. These differences can be identified by finding the chief interests of a personality. Some people are interested first of all in facts, whereas others in the meanings. However, these types are unbalanced to a greater or smaller degree, depending on the differences between the comparative length of horizontal and vertical axes, which characterize their personality. If the differences between the comparative length of horizontal and vertical axes are not too large, we speak of the personality types. By the growing of these differences, the person in question is approaching the status of mental illness (Levendel and Mezei, 1972), which can be described by relative reduction of dimensions. These all mean that everybody should permanently work on himself or herself otherwise the minimal balance/equilibrium can be lost and personality destroyed. Thus, without a considerable creativity the healthy men and women are unthinkable. As the most frequent and important experience of any human beings is the lack of sufficient in the given circumstances knowledge to be found and a lot of unsolved problems to be solved (Magyari-Beck, 2000. p. 132.), which is the firm empirical foundation of this hypothesis, our paper will deal with searching for its theoretical roots within the human nature.        

Two basic conceptions of personality development

Roughly speaking, there are two extremist conceptions of personality development in psychology and anthropology (We do not like Max Weber’s famous conception of “ideal type” as this expression is an oxymoron, which condenses an abstract – “ideal” –, and a concrete – “type” – component, which makes it either self-contradictory or meaningless). According to the first extremist view, personality develops on the basis of his genetic programs, which have also certain open niches for external influences coming from the natural and social environment. But the main determinants allegedly remain the genes throughout the human life. According to the second extremist view, we all are the products of huge social programs called culture and civilization. The functions of genes are limited to the production of elementary features mainly of our appearance and certain simple physiological processes. For example, to the color of our eyes, skin, to basic unconditional reflexes and so on. It is true that a lot of abilities can be built on many givens we possess by and within our physiology for example manual dexterity, physical strength etc. but these all are only the pieces of “raw material” within us, which can be useful if and only if we work on them in the framework of well-established projects of school- or self-training. Now, the first question is whether the human being is an extreme phenomenon in the above-mentioned sense, because if it is so, then even the extremist views can be realistic and valid. 

While the first conception derives human personality from the “biological below”, the second conception derives human personality from the “cultural above”. It is frequently maintained that only the first approach is scientific just because of its reductionist nature (Wilson, 1998). However, the second one neither can be regarded as non-scientific because the segmentation of the world vertically by the Gestalt principle – born is psychology but later generalized on the level of epistemology – proved to be also a successful hypothesis in the process of modeling the universe.  Segmentation in this case would mean the autonomy of every level of universe, of the corresponding scientific thinking, and – within them – of the level of personality. But, in this paper, we are not speaking of the isolated from each other levels. We are speaking rather of the dependence of lower levels on the higher ones. That is we turned the original scientific reductionism upside down. And this approach is already the third option, which has not found a wide application in science yet, perhaps mainly because of its religious origin.  

Perhaps the only area of scientific knowledge where the “from up to the bottom” way of thinking is used successfully can be found in the general theory of regulation and its applications. Thus, it is reasonable to formulate the next question: Can the personality development be regarded as a specific case of social regulation or is it a new – has not identified yet – “from up to the bottom” process to be discovered and studied in detail? Let us start the investigation into this topic by the first option of social regulation! Incidentally, we speak of the social regulation because it is the society which can be found immediately above the individual personality. Thus, in this phase of investigation, we omit the higher than society levels, which can nevertheless play a substantial role in personality formation. What does the term “social regulation” mean here? Well, human society can be regarded as a system of roles both in work and private life. The essence of roles is a set and structure of norms and values, and the algorithms of behavior leading to the application of the above-mentioned requirements. Thus the social regulation means – in this context – the distribution of the population among these roles, not according to the principle of one-to-one, as any person can have several – moreover changing – roles.



The sole genetic approach leads in fact to a metaphor we can call “plant-theory” of human development. By the pure “ideal type” – that is extremist – “plant-theory” we mean a kind of preprogrammed forms and processes, which do not need any substantial interference on the side of agents from outside. However, we can see that people who are let alone without any help coming from social institutions like schools, health care, water supply and so on – as in the cases of many African tribes and/or nations – die desperately in the circumstances of whatever natural environment. Even the pre-Columbian Indians of the New World had institutions necessary for their tribes' survival (it is another story that the simplicity and adequacy of these institutions made European discoverers of the New World such envy, which resulted in a massacre of Indians by the over-civilized conquistadors). Thus, the extremist “plant-theory” is unusable in the case of mankind. However, it is possible to imagine a scale where the so called “plant-theory” is only one of the extremes, and moving on this scale from the “plant theory” towards the other end we can arrive at the less and less genetically determined species. Although Watson discovered a number of animals only partially determined by their genes, we still are not familiar with their arrangement according to the degree to which this kind of determination is diminishing, and with no studies in the reason of this phenomenon (Watson, 2003). At the other – again virtual – extreme of this scale, the quasi-living creatures would be found, which are absolutely free from the nature. Nobody will be excited about the metaphor that these living creatures are either angels of religions or simply nonexistent. Where is the mankind on this scale?

We have a lot of evidence to say that our species is situated – although not on the extreme of “angels” but – closer to the direct opposite of “plant-theory” (The diligent religions created the images of a number of possible living creatures, which allegedly occupy the interval between the men and angels like for example devils, demons and so on. None of these merely spiritual beings became the subject matter of serious science). To make our understanding clearer, let us see the instance of cattle! Domesticated animals are by no means the normal examples of the nature. The reason of this is that they cannot survive in the original circumstances of their natural evolutionary niches. They need a certain amount or degree of civilization presented to them by people. Why? Well, the animals in question are specialized to a very great extent and because of this, helpless in a number of respects. So domestication leads to a kind of abnormality. People are very much similar to the domesticated animals unable to survive in their initial evolutionary niches (angels can live – according to the religions – only in the wonderful heaven). What are the differences between the cattle and mankind? Both are specialized, but on different basis. Cattle – in the process of domestication – loses its normal genetic background via an artificial selection – made by humans –, during which a certain enhanced genetic program oppresses and/or eliminates all the other ones. The method is that of the preference of “pars pro toto”. Man – on the other hand – lost almost all of his normal genome – except for 2% of them (Watson, 2003, Dawkins, 1991) – in the process of anthropogenesis and thus had to create an absolutely new for the nature artificial program, which developed a lot of specializations. These permanently changing specializations were and are distributed and redistributed among the people and led to the phenomenon of learned helplessness (Zanden, 1987) in natural environment as well. 

Personality as a creative product

 Personality is the highest level of man’s self-regulation influenced by society. In order to outline the conception of personality development as a creative process, I will take – merely as a basis – the orthodox Freudian approach to human ontogenesis. I am doing this not because I myself am an orthodox Freudian thinker, but because the relative simplicity of Freud’s conception is transparent enough in carrying those general principles I agree with. This does not mean that Freud was aware of his position as valuable from the point of view of creative paradigm. The principles in question were rather the important by-products on the part of the founding father of psychoanalysis. It is not so easy to define the so called starting point of personality development. A new person detaches oneself from the mother – which is the first context of the new living being – in the process of birth. The uterus and the fetus are in fact two parts of the same system. The Freudian phases of personality development are the processes of creative solutions accomplished by the baby itself (Freud, 1917). This fact is clearly expressed by the terminology of Freud: every next phase becomes possible if and only if the solution of problems of the preceding phase is already achieved. It is not necessary to solve these problems perfectly. But, certain minimums are necessary so as to start the solution of the next further phase. Where this minimum is not achieved, fixation or regression will occur inevitably in difficult situations. That is, we either stay with or return to the unaccomplished developmental phases. This is a brief summary of Freudian theory of psychopathology: the lack of appropriate solution – or closing – of a certain developmental phase. The Freudian message is quite clear: Personality development is a process of permanent problem solving. The only substantial deficiency in this theory is that Freud did not elaborate – if not the overall, however – a more detailed picture of the problems to be solved in different phases. He was for this task too a practical, pragmatic professional interested first of all in the therapy of his patients.

I am not saying that a baby solves its problems alone and in the conscious way. It is the new context of natural (mother, father, relatives, etc.) or artificial (babysitter, kindergarten, orphanage, etc.) family, which helps the baby with solving those problems, be they either stimulating this or that activity or inhibiting another – socially unacceptable – behavior. The question of consciousness is connected – on this initial level – only with the norms worked out by the particular culture and the methods of education practiced there. That is the consciousness here is not the consciousness of the baby, it is rather that of the social context where the baby starts its development. Of course, some genetic background is also present in any human being as well. Thus – strictly speaking – there exists no starting point of the personality development. Instead, we should speak of the starting structure composed of natural and social environment – which are both factual and normative – and genome, which is not especially important in the case of humans. The view of Wilson is especially and interestingly chaotic in this area. Wilson expressed his hope according to which soon we shall be able to change our genome using the new discoveries in genetics. But on what basis can we do that? Will genome change the genome itself? Then we shall remain the slaves of our genes no matter to what extent the genetics is elaborated. If not, then there is something within us, which is more powerful than the human genes. Is it perhaps our creativity emerged in the above outlined starting structure? Wilson did not even raise these questions in his famous book entitled Consilience. (Wilson, ibid.).  The exact nature of this starting structure has not yet been studied fundamentally. Neither its components nor the architecture in which these components cooperate with or contradict to each other were investigated sufficiently enough. The scholars who are dealing with this problem do this usually in the superficial way and by using commonplace terms of family studies concentrated rather on the proportion between these components and/or parts and pursuing frequently ideological ends, e.g. the human rights of women and children vis-á-vis the “dictatorship” of husbands and fathers. It is also possible that the need of a purely scientific concept of a starting structure of personality development – as its second context – is raised here in this paper for the very first time.

Orthodox psychoanalysis put forward another important thesis, which can not only be observed in everyday life but also guessed merely theoretically. If personality – especially on its conscious level – is the highest form of man’s self-regulation then it is obvious that the regulation in question expands and deepens in the process of normal life. The main phases of human development – in orthodox psychoanalysis: oral, anal, narcissism, genital – show great differences both in extent and depth of self-regulation, as if the person colonizes himself paradoxically by his own personality reducing sharply the autonomy of parts of physiological body. In the oral phase, personality is reduced to the oral functions. Other parts of the body exist simply as raw materials without belonging to the personality. In the anal phase, personality is reminiscent of – using a metaphor – a kind of worm (Mezei, in 1970th). Other parts of the body act autonomously. In the phase of narcissism, the lateral expansion of personality is added to the previous longitudinal one. In such a way, personality colonizes the whole body via this cruciform expansion. But we could discover in the recent past that European people are able to regulate mostly their overt behavior. In comparison with the eastern type people, the European man’s self-regulation is very much superficial. Moreover, the classical psychoanalysis stops at the door leading to social activity. For – a biologist and medical doctor – Freud, the main achievement of any human being is the ability to produce children biologically. That is to reach the genital phase. This phase was for him both the condition of psychological health and the grown up status where the person replicates himself and thus serves the survival and maintenance of mankind merely biologically. Incidentally, this conception of maturity and health is one of the most dangerous theories today, when the world is already overpopulated by mankind to an unbearable degree. Not to speak of the fact that mankind needs support concerning its mental conditions as well. A grown up person is far from being only a kind of sexually ripe animal. Although this criticism was frequently raised and repeated by the psychologists and anthropologists, they nevertheless left the pronouncement and notion of development by the grown up personality as an empty picture. The ontogenesis of post-genital periods of human life has not been understood and elaborated yet.

Psychoanalysis had run into a sharp contradiction to itself at this point. While we really create ourselves step by step till the early genital phase of our life is completed – achieving the soundness and status of the grown up man –, our creativity in the framework of classical psychoanalysis falls down afterward (or one should oppress his all-powerful sexuality if his goal is to be creative in any domain, which contradicts to the facts of biographies of outstanding artists, scientists, philosophers and so on). As sound and grown up persons, we allegedly are engaged mainly in the child-producing – that is sexual – activity. But the position of a great German poet of the second half of 18th and the first half of 19th century Johann Wolfgang Goethe – in his philosophical poem Faust – was much more realistic. The Faust’s sexual love affair with Margaret was not the peak – that is the end – of his personality development. On the contrary, Faust started his very rich social and transcendental life only after he left his isolated from people study and fell in love with Margaret. That is sexual maturity helped him with switching from the virtual life to the real one. The orthodox psychoanalysis repeated in fact the old and bad axiom according to which mankind is one of the animal species only. Now, where exactly is the above-mentioned contradiction in orthodox psychoanalysis overlooked by Freud? Well, while we people reach as a rule the highest creative achievements in our grown up phase of life by taking part in cultural processes, Freud stubbornly maintained that culture is rather the tool of people’s as animal creatures’ oppression. And it is this oppression which serves as the specific feature of mankind. This is a simple well-known contradiction between the theses and the facts. Thus, our question inevitably has to be: What is beyond and/or above the genital phase which explains our creative functioning and further ontogenetic development in the sexually mature period of our life? It is neither acceptable nor understandable that normal people permanently toil solving their childish problems.        

In order to overcome this contradiction and explain the creative nature of personality development also in grown up phase, three additional and well-distinguishable ontogenetic periods were added by us to the whatever psychoanalytic or other conceptions, which tend to neglect the “standard social science model of explanation” (e.g. Richards, 2000): the period of group membership, the period of organizational man and – finally – the period of cultured and civilized personality. All of these periods were taken by us from our Creatology Matrix (Magyari-Beck, e.g. 1990, 1993, 1999). The common specific feature of these three periods vis-á-vis the psychoanalytical phases is that they expand personality far beyond his physiological body. The result of these post-genital phases of personality development is the end of person’s identification merely with his physiology. Personality becomes much larger – than his body – system, where the physiological body is only a part, no matter to what extent this body is full of human intelligence accumulated by and in the solutions of pre-genital and genital phases. Another – and usually even the larger – part of our personality is the social system. Or it is better to say: the psychological model of our social system (or context). According to this approach at least three levels of further personality development can be distinguished. On the first one is the person who being identified only with groups – e.g. family, friends, etc. – cannot grasp yet the phenomena and essence of organizations. On the second one is the person who being identified only with organizations – e.g. firms, universities, etc. – cannot grasp yet the phenomena and essence of cultures and civilizations. On the third – and the highest – one is the person who is identified with cultures and civilizations. We suppose that these three levels of development are cumulative. That is, the personality who interiorized the group membership phase is already beyond the genital one. Likewise, the personality who interiorized the organizational phase is already beyond the group one, and the personality who interiorized the cultural phase is already beyond both the organizational and the group phases, meaning that he accomplished them successfully. This scheme can be elaborated in a much more substantial way. However, this task is – for the time being – outside the scope of this paper. Just for a brief example, it is possible to investigate the nature and number of groups, organizations and cultures which are accessible to personality on any of these levels. The more inferior their nature and the less their number the weaker the personality is on the level studied. A lot of valuable psychological inferences can be drawn from the investigations into the commitment of personality to groups, organizations and cultures/civilizations.

It is comparatively easy – at least theoretically – to connect the above-outlined newly discovered phases of development with the creativity question. If somebody reaches the horizon of groups and becomes also identified with it then this person will work eagerly for the closest group(s) to him. If somebody reaches the horizon of organizations and becomes also identified with it then this person will work eagerly for the most appropriate organization(s) for him. If somebody reaches the horizon of cultures and civilizations and becomes also identified with it then this person will work eagerly for the culture(s) and civilization(s) preferred by him. The possible and even frequently observable fact that a man after reaching the highest cultural level of social identification and seems to neglect the groups does not speak of his being an autistic personality. One of the possible understandings of his behavior can be the concentration by this person on one of the higher than group levels, at least temporarily. In any of such cases, the person works on the problems of group(s), organization(s) and culture(s) or civilization(s) as if their problems were his own personal problems. Here we perhaps found the roots of specific human altruism. But can we speak of altruism if somebody is satisfied by working on a problem without distinguishing the personal and social returns of this work? We shall not answer this very difficult question in this paper. But the problem of double return in creative problem solving allows us to raise two interesting and interconnected questions. One of the questions is how can the personal gain motivate and make valuable the problem-solving for the society. The answer to this question is clear. If there are no market forces or other forms of supporting a man’s creative problem solving – e.g. sponsorship, which is regarded as a market force only mistakenly as it was used also in the Middle Ages by the nobility – then the personal motivation of the problem solver will provide the necessary fuel for the activity in question. Many times this kind of intrinsic motivation alone is more powerful than the impact of extrinsic motivation (Hill and Amabile, 1993). This is the answer concerning the moving forces of problem solving. As far as the preciousness of this motivation is concerned, allegedly it depends on the quality level of the problem solver. However, the present author found that the sameness in personality’s motivation and the needs of society is itself the best indicator of the personality’s talent (Magyari Beck, 1988). In other words creativity grows with the growing of personality. How exactly – this is the question of future studies in creativity.  

The other question is how the social reward motivates and makes valuable the problem solving for the personality itself. Well, human development goes hand in hand with the frequent changes of the social – and biological – context of personality. In oral and anal phases, the context of personality contains that part of physiological body, which is not included into self-regulation. In the period of narcissism, the more or less correct context of personality is its mirror image. This is the only virtual context of developing man, thus, the person is very vulnerable in this phase, because the function of the real environmental context is – according to the Kurt Gödel’s theorem – to make the system coherent and this cannot be accomplished by a virtual environment alone. As, in the narcissist phase, a person has no real environmental context which would make him coherent logically he – in the absence of real support on the side of reality – must like himself unconditionally so as to have the necessary self-defense at least emotionally. In this phase, emotion stands for the logical coherence. In the period of genital phase, the context of personality is the object of sexual love. It is almost self-evident to continue this train of thought for the phases of groups, organizations and cultures or civilizations. The genital phase becomes coherent and working if we reach the next period of the (successful) group membership. The phase of group membership becomes coherent and working if we reach the (next) period of our being an outstanding organizational man. The phase of organizational man becomes coherent and working after achieving the phase of deep identification with culture and civilization. As a consequence, we should correct the Freudian theory of personality development and psychopathology on the basis of Gödel’s theorem, as first we have to go beyond and above a developmental phase so as to complete it. It is impossible to solve any problem without a larger than the problem framework. Incidentally, this is the truth all the scholars are familiar with in their domains either consciously or subconsciously. An analogous – if not the similar – thesis has been put forward by Dawkins who regarded the body of living systems as machine of genes’ survival (Dawkins, 1976). Thus, we can arrive at the conclusion according to which personality creates himself by and through creating his environment. Life is a creative process, which has a number of levels.

What is Creato(PATHO)logy?

The term creato(PATHO)logy was coined by this author in 1979 and presented in one of the Hungarian Conferences on System Theory (Sopron, 1979, September 2-5) and published only in Hungarian later on (Magyari Beck, 1982). How can we illuminate the meaning of creato(PATHO)logy in this paper? Well, creato(PATHO)logy is that chapter of Creatology, which describes and explains the hindering forces limiting our creativity. In the case of individual personality – which as a topic is itself only a small part of the discipline of Creatology –, the well-developed and healthy forms of creativity are those, which emerge on the phase of person’s identification with chosen by him culture and civilization. We people are of course creative in all the phases of our ontogenesis, but on different levels. However, fixation and/or regression can occur not only in the cases of the old Freudian phases of personality development. One can stop on the level of groups and work only for them. The organizations and cultures do not exist for fixed on the group level personality (in real life situations, these people behave in organizations as if they acted in groups neglecting the organizational norms and rules). Likewise, we can stop on the phase of organizations and be ignorant of a larger universe of cultures and civilizations. To make the matter worse, we can stick to certain types of groups – for example only to the narrow framework of a family –, to certain organization – for example only to military forces –, to certain culture and civilization, that is, to reach these levels in a very narrow manner. This corresponds to the weak – one type – solution to the life problems threatened by either fixation or regression in the sense of our socialization. As a well-developed personality has a lot of shells, all of which makes the underlying system coherent, this person has a firm basis and can work on the highest level of cultures and civilizations in a global way. On the contrary: the lower the level of his fixation the greater his pathology in creative functioning. Of course, it is not a good scientific strategy to forget about the age of personality. Every age has its norms to be reached. But for a grown up person it is obligatory to think and work on – or start to work from – the level of cultures and civilizations. This is an especially important norm because the 20th and 21st centuries became the historical periods, in which the highest level is that of the organizations, and which forget the top systems of cultures and civilizations. One of the most dangerous facts hindering the creativity and thus producing creato(PATHO)logical phenomena is our inability to solve the problems of organizations, just because by concentrating only on them we tend to neglect their meta-systems, that is cultures and civilizations. Lip service alone – paid to the organizations – does not matter at all.    


Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Dawkins, R. (1991) The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin Books, London. There are theories according to which the junk in genome is not a real junk. It is only a method of memory storage well-known in computer technology. However, this argument cannot be accepted easily because the way computers work are not obligatory in the realm of biology even if the result – that is the memory storage – is the same. This consideration is based on the nature of conditionals.

Freud, S. (1917) Bevezetés a pszichoanalízisbe (Introduction to Psychoanalysis) Internationaler Psychoanalytischer Verlag, Wien and Somló Béla Kiadása, Budapest.

Hill, K. G. and Amabile, T. M. (1993) A Social Psychological Perspective on Creativity: Intrinsic Motivation and Creativity in the Classroom and Workplace. In: Isaksen, S. G.., Murdock, M. C., Firestien, R. L., Treffinger, D. J. “Understanding and Recognizing Creativity: The Emergence of a Discipline”. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, New Jersey. pp. 400-432. It should be clear from our paper that intrinsic and extrinsic motivations do not exclude each other either theoretically or in practice. The best version is where both of them work in the same direction. As for their comparative power, it can be studied if and only if the two motivations contradict to each other, which is a frequent case in this over-organized Euro-Atlantic civilization. It seems to the present author that the problem was formulated by Professor Amabile, however to grasp its deepest and most important details, we should continue the investigation far beyond psychology.  

Levendel, L. and Mezei, Á. (1972) Az alkoholista beteg személyisége (The Personality of Alcoholic Man). Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.

Magyari Beck István (1979) Mit jelent a kreato(PATO)logia? (What does the Word Creato(PATHO)logy mean? In: Magyari Beck István “Alkotáselméleti (kreatológiai) tanulmányok” (Studies in Theory of Creativity /Creatology/). Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1982. pp. 42-51. 

Magyari Beck István (1988) A tehetség mint meghasonlás (Talent as a Disunion of Personality). Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest.

Magyari-Beck, I (1990) An Introduction to the Framework of Creatology. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 1990. 3. pp. 151-160.

Magyari-Beck, I. (1993) Creatology: A Potential Paradigm for an Emerging Discipline. In: Isaksen, S.G., Murdock, M.C., Firestien, R.L., Treffinger, D.J. (eds.) “Understanding and Recognizing Creativity: The Emergence of a Discipline”. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, New Jersey, 1993. pp. 48-82.

Magyari-Beck, I. (1999) Creatology. In: Runco M. A. and Pritzker S. R. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Creativity, Academic Press, San Diego, London, Boston, New York, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto, 1999. pp. 433-441.

Magyari Beck István (2000) A homo oeconomicustól a homo humanusig (From the Homo Oeconomicus to the Homo Humanus). Aula Kiadó, Budapest.

Mezei Árpád (1970th) Personal communication during his informal seminars in his apartment.

Richards, J. R. (2000) Human Nature after Darwin. A philosophical introduction. Routledge, London, New York.  

Watson, J. D. and Berry, A. (2003) DNS az élet titka (DNA: the secret of life) HVG Kiadó, Budapest, 2004. Unfortunately, Watson is a desperate geneticist and he maintained the view in accordance with the 2% of human genome is not only healthy enough but also has a very good quality, thus is able to fulfill all the functions of the remaining 98% of junk genes.

Wilson, E. O. (1998) Consilience. The Unity of Knowledge. Little Brown and Company, London.

Zanden, J. W. V. (1987) Social Psychology. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, St. Louis, San Francisco, Auckland, Bogotá, Caracas, Lisbon, London, Madrid, Mexico, Milan, Montreal, New Delhi, Paris, San Juan, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto.   

korábbi számok
hang be/ki
impresszumkorábbi számokpartnerekelérhetőségekhang ki/be