Thread: The finest example of each type

1. Originally Posted by Quinlan
Like I said, you use and interpret type in vastly different ways than I do. So I don't think I can agree with you unless I buy into your system which I know nothing about.

I just can't understand how a preference is in any way a limitation.
because i go from the assumption that no two people are equal, i equate a type with an alignment, a preference. i do not use ability or strength in this equation, but individual function orders may differ from specific types.

take me for instance: i am dominant N, but my auxiliary and tertiary functions are aligned towards neither ENTP or ENFP, because i use both Ti and Fi. i place myself in the middle because Ti and Fi are competing against each other; and so, i am ENTP 50% of the time and ENFP 50% of the time. there are probably many more on this board whose function priorities are different than their listed type, however little they want to admit it.

there's much more to this, but it would require a seminar to explain all of it. in due time, i'll have to write a book. anyway, enough of my theories.

preference is always a limitation, as it is a definition. if you want raw unlimited power, you cannot define it, and thus you cannot use it. if we didn't define the processes in our heads, we'd just have one big process and consider everyone equal in their mindset. however, this would not be very accurate. so we sacrifice some of that power to create limits that we can use to understand and research differences in mindsets. 16 MBTI types are better than 1 type, since they would be able to more accurately pinpoint differences between them.

the reason why i see S/N as the greatest gap between types is because how i have seen S and N people act. there is a reason why i consider S people unable to do some things that N people can do, and vice versa. while you may want it to be different, there are limits for both parts - if there weren't we wouldn't have 16 or 100 or 1000 types, we'd just have 1 type and just use that.

i have seen what spielberg has done and how he has done it. i have correlated it to some of the things other Ns have done (including myself), and i have concluded that he shows thinking with intuition; with his messages in movies, his way of directing. i see no sign of S in this, because S wouldn't be concerned with the messages behind the movies. S wouldn't be concerned with meanings or messages between the lines; S would be concerned with what is up front. and while spielberg has directed action movies, even there he shows ability to go beyond just what happens on screen. if this isn't the definite proof that he is N, then i don't know what is.

but - if you are so sure he is ISFP, then tell me this: could you see yourself making the same movies he has done, in the same way? could you elevate something from just being a movie to something much greater? i know i could; and if i was making movies i would come very close to some of the things he has done.

2. Originally Posted by simulatedworld
I er, uh, think John F. Kennedy is uh, the er, uh, best ESTP in the uh, world!
I don't agree. I studied The Kennedy Years as a Special Subject in my third year at uni and learning about his political decisions and his private life I lost a lot of respect for him. (He had countless flings with everything from starlets to prostitutes, was involved with the mafia, tried to assassinate the leaders of other countries, was far too obsessed with his image and couldn't think very far into the future.)

Kennedy was great in dealing with immediate emergencies (like the Cuban Missile Crisis) but had he been a bit more of a visionary instead of a pragmatist he could have prevented many of the problems beforehand instead of them growing into full-blown crisis, he was horrible at recognising the consequences of his actions (hadn't he angered Fidel Castro with the Bay of Pigs disaster and other ill-fated attempts to bring the Cuban government down the Cuban Missile Crisis might never have happened in the first place) In Kennedy's character I can see a lot of unhealthy Se (his inability to restrain himself especially when it comes to women) and a strong lack of morals and character. He was a very charismatic douchebag.

3. Originally Posted by Lightyear
In Kennedy's character I can see a lot of unhealthy Se (his inability to restrain himself especially when it comes to women) and a strong lack of morals and character. He was a very charismatic douchebag.
If this is a disqualification for being a great man, then we'd better take a harder look at some of the other candidates...starting with the highly vaunted Thomas Jefferson.

4. Originally Posted by heart
If this is a disqualification for being a great man, then we'd better take a harder look at some of the other candidates...starting with the highly vaunted Thomas Jefferson.
yeah don't confuse progress with politics.

5. Originally Posted by Sentura
because i go from the assumption that no two people are equal, i equate a type with an alignment, a preference. i do not use ability or strength in this equation, but individual function orders may differ from specific types.
I agree that the strength of his functions could be ENFP but this strength could have been developed outside of his natural preference.

take me for instance: i am dominant N, but my auxiliary and tertiary functions are aligned towards neither ENTP or ENFP, because i use both Ti and Fi. i place myself in the middle because Ti and Fi are competing against each other; and so, i am ENTP 50% of the time and ENFP 50% of the time. there are probably many more on this board whose function priorities are different than their listed type, however little they want to admit it.
I would say in your case to keep searching, you're probably missing something that is very obvious to you but so natural your missing it's relevance. I think Jung was onto something with his function orders but to find your true type you have to completely disregard functional strength, ability and external influences, it's about what feels good, what feels natural, even if the preference is only slight, it still exists. I really believe it is a confusion between developed strengths and unconcious natural inclination. If you keep looking, introspecting and even considering types you never considered before eventually it will click and you'll have that AHA! moment that everyone loves.

preference is always a limitation, as it is a definition. if you want raw unlimited power, you cannot define it, and thus you cannot use it. if we didn't define the processes in our heads, we'd just have one big process and consider everyone equal in their mindset. however, this would not be very accurate. so we sacrifice some of that power to create limits that we can use to understand and research differences in mindsets. 16 MBTI types are better than 1 type, since they would be able to more accurately pinpoint differences between them.
I'm a firm believer that everyone uses all of the functions and we each have our own unique functional strengths (that may or may not have developed alongside our natural preferences). Considering MBTI in this way may not be as fun, easy to use, and may not give us the same sort of ego boost but it does allow you to get a better understanding of how other people would naturally like to be and how they might like to be considered/treated. Considering type in this way make it VERY difficult to type others, that's why I'll rarely say someone is or isn't a type.

the reason why i see S/N as the greatest gap between types is because how i have seen S and N people act. there is a reason why i consider S people unable to do some things that N people can do, and vice versa. while you may want it to be different, there are limits for both parts - if there weren't we wouldn't have 16 or 100 or 1000 types, we'd just have 1 type and just use that.
How do you avoid confirmation bias in this instance? if you are typing Sensors based on X then it is hardly surprising that those people act like X. If when you type people you take into account the possibilty that Sensors can have strong use of intuition, just as Intuitives can have strong use of sensing then you still have two groups, they are much harder to sort out but when you do I think you're getting more accurate typings, closer to their "true" selves. You may want to disregard the importance of the tertiary function and that all Sensors are blinded by their sensing function but I think people are more nuanced than that.

i have seen what spielberg has done and how he has done it. i have correlated it to some of the things other Ns have done (including myself), and i have concluded that he shows thinking with intuition; with his messages in movies, his way of directing. i see no sign of S in this, because S wouldn't be concerned with the messages behind the movies. S wouldn't be concerned with meanings or messages between the lines; S would be concerned with what is up front.
If S isn't concerned with messages, then N isn't concerned with what's "up front", yet Spielberg's work is always first and foremost visually stunning. He obviously has very strong Se. He is aware of subtleties in perspective, movement and colour. I would say that any mainstream director needs to have strong use of Se before anything else, otherwise they're just pissing in the wind. That fact of the matter is being a great director probably invloves all of the functions. If you really are a Ne dom then I would be suspicious of what meaning you take from his movies because by nature you will take meaning from anything.

but - if you are so sure he is ISFP, then tell me this: could you see yourself making the same movies he has done, in the same way? could you elevate something from just being a movie to something much greater? i know i could; and if i was making movies i would come very close to some of the things he has done.
I would hope I could do well, I know for sure I wouldn't just make purely mindless action movies as you want to imply. His functional development seems clear, from the awkward, quiet and shy young kid running purely on Fi, to engaging his extraverted sensing into a visual medium that allowed him to express that child-like Fi, so engaged was his Se that in adulthood he could come across as extraverted. Youthful action and adventure was his game then as he matured he went on to further develop his tertiary Ni and move into deeper more meaningful projects like Shindler's List and Saving Private Ryan and shifting his focus to more global (as opposed to personal) themes.

6. Originally Posted by Lady X
right? haha

all of the ones i can think of...were screwed up at some point!

does anyone have any good examples that are not musicians or actors?
You forgot comedians - there are lots of ENFP comedians: Bill Cosby, Robin Williams, Billy Connolly, Will Rogers, Carol Burnett. Though, technically all of these people have acted as well.

And wasn't Charles Dickens a ENFP? I would think he is the best choice.

7. Originally Posted by Southern Kross
You forgot comedians - there are lots of ENFP comedians: Bill Cosby, Robin Williams, Billy Connolly, Will Rogers, Carol Burnett. Though, technically all of these people have acted as well.

And wasn't Charles Dickens a ENFP? I would think he is the best choice.
oh! yeah if that's true. that's a good one.

8. Originally Posted by Quinlan
I agree that the strength of his functions could be ENFP but this strength could have been developed outside of his natural preference.

I would say in your case to keep searching, you're probably missing something that is very obvious to you but so natural your missing it's relevance. I think Jung was onto something with his function orders but to find your true type you have to completely disregard functional strength, ability and external influences, it's about what feels good, what feels natural, even if the preference is only slight, it still exists. I really believe it is a confusion between developed strengths and unconcious natural inclination. If you keep looking, introspecting and even considering types you never considered before eventually it will click and you'll have that AHA! moment that everyone loves.
you misunderstand me. i preference does not equal strength. preference equals preference regardless of strength. besides, if you believe jung so fervently, then who are you to question my theory? all research and all theories in all sciences always have to be taken with a grain of salt. the world isn't objective to human eyes.

I'm a firm believer that everyone uses all of the functions and we each have our own unique functional strengths (that may or may not have developed alongside our natural preferences). Considering MBTI in this way may not be as fun, easy to use, and may not give us the same sort of ego boost but it does allow you to get a better understanding of how other people would naturally like to be and how they might like to be considered/treated. Considering type in this way make it VERY difficult to type others, that's why I'll rarely say someone is or isn't a type.
see above.

How do you avoid confirmation bias in this instance? if you are typing Sensors based on X then it is hardly surprising that those people act like X. If when you type people you take into account the possibilty that Sensors can have strong use of intuition, just as Intuitives can have strong use of sensing then you still have two groups, they are much harder to sort out but when you do I think you're getting more accurate typings, closer to their "true" selves. You may want to disregard the importance of the tertiary function and that all Sensors are blinded by their sensing function but I think people are more nuanced than that.
how do you avoid bias on anything? you can't, at least not with the technology of present day. there will always be bias, by physical limitations, by mindset limitations, by anything really.

the way i also see function order is that no strength can go above preference. which means that if you have dominant sensing, and your tertiary intuition, then your intuition will never be as strong as your sensing. so even though you may have a relatively strong intuition (for your type), even then it would mean that it does not surpass your dominant and auxiliary functions.

case in point: i have seen no S's going into research and developing theories... unlike their N counterparts. show me an S scientist who has made outstanding theories in his field.

If S isn't concerned with messages, then N isn't concerned with what's "up front", yet Spielberg's work is always first and foremost visually stunning. He obviously has very strong Se. He is aware of subtleties in perspective, movement and colour. I would say that any mainstream director needs to have strong use of Se before anything else, otherwise they're just pissing in the wind. That fact of the matter is being a great director probably invloves all of the functions. If you really are a Ne dom then I would be suspicious of what meaning you take from his movies because by nature you will take meaning from anything.
you misunderstand the functions, or you misunderstand what i'm saying. N can create and absorb as much sensory input as S, but it does so differently. this yields different results.

visuals, and art in general, of any kind (music, visual art, what have you) are traits belonging to P. S has little to do with this other than how a person would envision a piece of art. in the first place. that is to say, SPs would create concrete art, where the message isn't analytical; whereas NP would create abstract art where the message would be analytical. it is common to see various factors in spielberg's movies to go beneath surfacial movie, usually with reference or question to ethics and morals.

I would hope I could do well, I know for sure I wouldn't just make purely mindless action movies as you want to imply. His functional development seems clear, from the awkward, quiet and shy young kid running purely on Fi, to engaging his extraverted sensing into a visual medium that allowed him to express that child-like Fi, so engaged was his Se that in adulthood he could come across as extraverted. Youthful action and adventure was his game then as he matured he went on to further develop his tertiary Ni and move into deeper more meaningful projects like Shindler's List and Saving Private Ryan and shifting his focus to more global (as opposed to personal) themes.
i don't see his extraverted sensing in use at all, because there are few of his movies (especially at mature age) that have concrete or superficial conflicts. the way i have seen ENFPs, they are usually late bloomers in regards to finding themselves. but once they do, it is much different. i see Ne in his movies; he has an idea of what he is about to create before doing so. otherwise his movies would not have been as great as people think.

honestly, and this is meant with as little offense as possible, i don't think you can type people based on just what you have read in the description for a type or because of their function order. it requires intuition to see through the facade, and i just don't think you have that. incidentally, this is the same reason that psychology is a NF profession and not a S profession. this goes especially towards your remark that "his functional development seem clear". i'm not saying you should stop typing people, but i am saying that going by the book isn't going to yield optimal results here.

9. Originally Posted by Sentura
honestly, and this is meant with as little offense as possible, i don't think you can type people based on just what you have read in the description for a type or because of their function order. it requires intuition to see through the facade, and i just don't think you have that. incidentally, this is the same reason that psychology is a NF profession and not a S profession. this goes especially towards your remark that "his functional development seem clear". i'm not saying you should stop typing people, but i am saying that going by the book isn't going to yield optimal results here.
Says the guy who can't even type himself?

We are going in circles, nice talking to you Sentura it's been interesting.

10. ...is he gone?

so it's settled, enfp!

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO