The finest example of each type

[Sentura]

and WTF?! how'd i miss this...you...

haha, sorry. your behaviour seems to be leaning towards a more happy/cute approach than an edgy or sarcastic one. i meant no harm!

 

[Lady_X]

uh huh...........

 

[VagrantFarce]

Just wondering what about that particular clip that was so not ISFP? so I can reassess my type.

His imagination is going utterly haywire, he doesn't strike me as very Se at all. It's like he's strung out on coke or something. How anyone can look at that video and describe him as anything resembling "grounded in reality" is beyond me.

And Spielberg is nothing like Mister Rogers, he's the crazy wunderkind of Hollywood. I just always saw Ne-dominants as "oh, what does that button do?!" kind of people, and Spielberg strikes me as that sort of person in everyway. We're talking about the guy who wrote and directed Close Encounters and ET here, people.

 

[Sentura]

His imagination is going utterly haywire, he doesn't strike me as very Se at all. It's like he's strung out on coke or something. How anyone can look at that video and describe him as anything resembling "grounded in reality" is beyond me.

And Spielberg is nothing like Mister Rogers, he's the crazy wunderkind of Hollywood. I just always saw Ne-dominants as "oh, what does that button do?!" kind of people, and Spielberg strikes me as that sort of person in everyway. We're talking about the guy who wrote and directed Close Encounters and ET here, people.

thanks for elaborating upon what i failed to do, boyo.

 

[Quinlan]

His imagination is going utterly haywire, he doesn't strike me as very Se at all. It's like he's strung out on coke or something. How anyone can look at that video and describe him as anything resembling "grounded in reality" is beyond me.

Where was his imagination? He was just describing what he did as a child, he was looking for something that was actually there, the faint signal coming through of a concrete reality (real tv show) and he wondered what actual real concrete TV show it was. A faint indication of a hidden concrete reality feeds Se, you want to take in more and more detail to reveal what's really there, to ground yourself. As a child I used to stare at the TV "snow" and pretend they were a swarm of ants, and I kept waiting for one of them to do something special, then I would know that one was the "Atom" ant, that argueably takes more imagination than what Spielberg was doing. Should that be telling me something?

He then went on to describe an act of extreme impulsiveness, SPs are known for their impulsiveness, no forethought, no reasoning, no meaning just pure (re)action.

I'm not wanting to start another debate, I'm just trying to see why I don't find Spielbergs 'pattern' all that remarkable. If I'm ISFP my pattern should be quite different shouldn't it? and I should find what he is saying as 'out there'?

Confused.

 

[Jeffster]

Yeah, I agree with Quinlan on the video. His descriptions of his memories with the tv sound a lot like my childhood memories with trying to tune in distant radio stations. His memory seems quite detailed, and that doesn't seem to jive with ENFP. Yes, I know I'm stereotyping, but my experience with ENFPs has been that they have trouble remembering the details of stuff that happened a couple weeks ago, much less years and years ago. It didn't surprise me when I read a website that said "Si" was the weakest or least used function for an ENFP, it seemed to fit my experience with them.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Where was his imagination? He was just describing what he did as a child, he was looking for something that was actually there, the faint signal coming through of a concrete reality (real tv show) and he wondered what actual real concrete TV show it was. A faint indication of a hidden concrete reality feeds Se, you want to take in more and more detail to reveal what's really there, to ground yourself. As a child I used to stare at the TV "snow" and pretend they were a swarm of ants, and I kept waiting for one of them to do something special, then I would know that one was the "Atom" ant, that argueably takes more imagination than what Spielberg was doing. Should that be telling me something?

He then went on to describe an act of extreme impulsiveness, SPs are known for their impulsiveness, no forethought, no reasoning, no meaning just pure (re)action.

I'm not wanting to start another debate, I'm just trying to see why I don't find Spielbergs 'pattern' all that remarkable. If I'm ISFP my pattern should be quite different shouldn't it? and I should find what he is saying as 'out there'?

Confused.

I suppose arguments can be made for both Se and Ne from that video, but he just seems like the sort of person who makes contextual connections almost instinctually, and his artistic output is often remembered for its imagination. At least to me.

Observation: IIT People with Ne are arguing for Ne, people with Se are arguing for Se. Maybe a discussion on E/I would yield actual results.

 

[heart]

Spielberg is clearly ISFP, a composer artisan just like Mozart.

But Mozart wins out for me as ideal ISFP!

 

[Sentura]

Yeah, I agree with Quinlan on the video. His descriptions of his memories with the tv sound a lot like my childhood memories with trying to tune in distant radio stations. His memory seems quite detailed, and that doesn't seem to jive with ENFP. Yes, I know I'm stereotyping, but my experience with ENFPs has been that they have trouble remembering the details of stuff that happened a couple weeks ago, much less years and years ago. It didn't surprise me when I read a website that said "Si" was the weakest or least used function for an ENFP, it seemed to fit my experience with them.

i have very good long term memory, but my short term memory is not as good. i would be able to describe to you in detail what happened at a specific event 5 years ago, but i wouldn't be able to describe what i ate for lunch a few days ago.

 

[Quinlan]

Observation: IIT People with Ne are arguing for Ne, people with Se are arguing for Se. Maybe a discussion on E/I would yield actual results.

He seems to have had quite an introverted childhood but then he is so damn engaging and excitable when discussing movies. It's a tough one.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Steven had a very active imagination. Skinny, sensitive, non-athletic, he was clumsy in sports and wasn't drawn toward outdoor sports. Instead, he spent much time alone in his bedroom with the door closed. This was his imagination workshop. He developed a tremendous sense of imagination from the grotesque trees outside his window to the cracks in his wall.

Steven Spielberg as a Role Model

Ne! Ne NE

 

[heart]

^ Did he have any childhood illnesses? My ISFP friend has a congenital muscle/neurological disorder and has associated cordination problems but she's definately Se in her perception.

 

[entropie]

Not an ISFP:

YouTube - Queen - I want to break free

As in camouflaged ISTP

 

[wolfy]

Spielberg is clearly ISFP, a composer artisan just like Mozart.

But Mozart wins out for me as ideal ISFP!

I almost chose Mozart. Bob Dylan too but Spielberg is the most stable of the three. My personal favourite from the Keirsey list is Bob Dylan.

 

[Valiant]

ENTJ - John Lennon
ENTP - Vladimir Putin
INTJ - C.S. Lewis
INTP - Socrates

ENFJ - George Lucas
ENFP - Mark Twain
INFP - J.R.R. Tolkien
INFJ - Hard time picking, too many awesome characters. I'll have to pick Robert Burns, for this one, though!

 

[LunarMoon]

prove to me he is the greatest. prove to me that there is a difference between an average ISFP and a great ISFP. (hint: you can't, it's subjective).



honestly it seems more like you just want him to be ISFP because then you'll have a role model with the same archetype as you. i don't think an ISFP would be overstepping any boundaries, because that's not what SPs do. again, feel free to prove me wrong.

Greatness is subjective but the second this topic became about famous individuals it adhered to a rough formula. Figures who become notable or historical in some fashion usually stand out as such because they are extreme. On one hand, you have the Savants who aren’t famous in terms of historical greatness but for the extreme bent of the talents. Then there are those such as Miyamoto Musashi or Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart whose talent in an established field earned them attention at a young age. And lastly there and those such as Einstein whose extreme bent in a particular intelligence (spatial and logical thought in Albert’s case) allowed them to break entirely new ground. For the last one there are some researchers who will actually claim that he was handicapped in one area and overcompensated in another. In the case of your Steven Spielberg he may have had an extreme bent in terms of creative thought for an ISFP. Historical figures are notable for the very fact that they are outliers.

As for the second comment, I recall reading that one of the two major developers of the C++ programming language is a confirmed ISTP. Food for thought.

If so why do all the type sites have him as ISFP? Including Keirseys site.
I really don't care what type any celebrity is and only included him because other people smarter than me have said he is ISFP.

Group consensus is an awful measuring stick of whether a fact is true or not. So is argument from authority. There was once a time when the greatest and most intelligent minds in the world would say that the Earth is flat.

I also refuse to believe that a person who dresses like this is an ISP. He's a man-child right down to the bone, pure ENFP.

This stood out to me but the following statement is for the entire post and to debate against a common stereotype on this site. Simple non-conformity and a creative vision doesn’t automatically mean ENFP nor does it mean Ne dominant.

As for my contributory guesses:

Albert Einstein: INTP
Mahatma Gandhi: INFJ
Nikola Tesla: ENTP
Thomas Edison: ENTJ
Martin Luther King JR: ENFJ
George Washington: ESTJ

 

[wolfy]

Group consensus is an awful measuring stick of whether a fact is true or not. So is argument from authority. There was once a time when the greatest and most intelligent minds in the world would say that the Earth is flat.

It's a perfectly fine measuring stick for something as silly and inconsequential as some celebrities type.
What a ridiculous comparison.

 

[LunarMoon]

It's a perfectly fine measuring stick for something as silly and inconsequential as some celebrities type.
What a ridiculous comparison.

Wrong information is wrong information regardless of what it'll actually be used for. Just because their judgment is on a "silly and inconsequential" topic doesn't make it any more right.

 

[wolfy]

Wrong information is wrong information regardless of what it'll actually be used for. Just because their judgment is on a "silly and inconsequential" topic doesn't make it any more right.

The earth can be proven to be round using the scientific method.
Show me how MBTI types can be proven. Prove to me there can be only one answer.

 

[LunarMoon]

The earth can be proven to be round using the scientific method.
Show me how MBTI types can be proven. Prove to me there can be only one answer.

The same way that they have been "proven" through scientific studies such as the following or within anything involving the Big Five. You take a collection of consistently recognized personality traits, note that they tend to collect together with each other as separate types and from there note that a particular celebrity's behavior matches that list of personality traits.