The finest example of each type

[Lady_X]

Isn't Keanu Reeves ENFJ!

i know...intj?? but actually i kinda thought enfp but maybe enfj ??

 

[heart]

i know...intj?? but actually i kinda thought enfp but maybe enfj ??

Yes, you might be correct, I can't remember. But definately ENF!

It might have been Ethan Hawke who was ENFJ.

 

[Moiety]

I think Reeves might be an ISFP but for some reason I could also see ENFP. FP for sure I'd say.

 

[Quinlan]

when typing people i use approximations, not generalizations. his function order may not completely be that of an ENFP, but that doesn't mean he isn't close to being an ENFP.

I think we are using and interpreting type very differently so I don't think we'll be able to agree.

feel free to give me examples of SPs overstepping boundaries. so far i haven't seen any.

I need you to be giving me examples so I can see where you're coming from. Some specific examples of where an NP would cross a boundary and an SP wouldn't would be good. You brought it up so you must have some examples in mind?

are you kidding me? nobody's telling anyone what to do, it's about what they are most likely to do. an introvert is not very likely to walk into a studio, whereas a ENP would be very much likely. it's probability, not orders. can't you have a discussion without attacking the other person?

I'm sorry, I didn't mean that as an attack, a defense more likely. You seemed to be implying that being an introvert is a handicap in some way, which I strongly disagree with. There are any number of reasons why an Introvert could and would do that.

It just frustrates me to see blanket statements like " You're an S so you are unable to have good use or understanding of intuition" or "you're an introvert, so you're unconvincing and have poor social skills".

yeah, no. i don't believe it to be a chance encounter; he was going for it having in mind what he wanted to do. that's NP right there. like i said before, i'm positive he's not introvert.

The way he described it in the interview I saw he said he was just curious and was exploring the studio when he just happened to open a lucky door, got talking to the guy inside and ended up with an unpaid job.

also, how is walking into a place asking for a job overstepping a boundary? is there some sort of social stigma against people who have jobs that they want that i'm not aware of?

here:
YouTube - Spielberg explains the job

He was on a tour and left the tour and started wandering off by himself, I'm pretty sure that's not allowed, so he was breaking the rules.

i'm willing to bet no ISFP would talk like that, let alone say that you need "intuition" as a skill for film making. he's definitely not S.

Why wouldn't he? Just because someone is an S doesn't mean they don't value intuition, in the same way someone who is an N doesn't mean they don't value sensing. Ni is the tertiary process of an ISFP and probably the function most heavily and conciously relied open when it comes to their creativity.

so you're saying that your Fi charm lets you do what you want or talk like you want to anyone? i doubt it.

I don't even know what Fi charm means, it sounds vague.

i think the clip from youtube is the killing blow in this discussion. there's no way an ISP would be able to be so open/calm while talking, and the way he deducts requirements from abstraction is a tell tale sign of N.

You're doing it again, you are putting limits on what you think a certain type can do that just aren't there. I didn't see anything spectacular about the way he was talking and could easily see myself doing a clip like that. He is a very mature and pretty much self-actualised guy, who has been in the movie industry most his life, probably done countless interviews, ISFP or not of course he is going to be comfortable speaking to the camera! What to me is more telling is how he described his childhood, how shy, quiet and awkward he was before maturing and becoming more balanced.

When an ISFP is passionate they will talk your ear off I promise you.

 

[Sentura]

I need you to be giving me examples so I can see where you're coming from. Some specific examples of where an NP would cross a boundary and an SP wouldn't would be good. You brought it up so you must have some examples in mind?

NF overstep: lars von trier's antichrist, with people mutilating themselves and others and the effect on his audience. or, in the heroes series, when a person sends in a person to be eaten by another person. the person about to get eaten is oblivious to what is going to happen. NF boundary breaking seeps into the core and breaks you down from within. that is something SP won't ever be able to do.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean that as an attack, a defense more likely. You seemed to be implying that being an introvert is a handicap in some way, which I strongly disagree with. There are any number of reasons why an Introvert could and would do that.

It just frustrates me to see blanket statements like " You're an S so you are unable to have good use or understanding of intuition" or "you're an introvert, so you're unconvincing and have poor social skills".

about the S, i'll have to say that you most likely don't have a good sense of intuition; you wouldn't be at the same level as an dominant N or even auxiliary N. and yes, it may be a blanket statement, but the dichotomy between S and N is the only reason i can still use the MBTI theory as a base. there are simply things that S won't be able to understand, in the same way that there are things that N won't be able to do; regardless of whether you have a tertiary intutive function or not.

the ISFP/ISTPs i have met have had no understanding on the things that happen on the level i am on. so pardon if it's offensive, but it's the truth either how.

introvertness on the other hand, i treat as energy management; it is a function that allows you to get energy from being alone rather than being with people. i don't associate anything else with it. however, introvertedness is frequently followed by paranoia, which creates shyness because of fear. extrovertedness on the other hand, may be followed by autophobia.

The way he described it in the interview I saw he said he was just curious and was exploring the studio when he just happened to open a lucky door, got talking to the guy inside and ended up with an unpaid job.

source please.

He was on a tour and left the tour and started wandering off by himself, I'm pretty sure that's not allowed, so he was breaking the rules.

what are you referring to here?

Why wouldn't he? Just because someone is an S doesn't mean they don't value intuition, in the same way someone who is an N doesn't mean they don't value sensing. Ni is the tertiary process of an ISFP and probably the function most heavily and conciously relied open when it comes to their creativity.

intuition is a subconscious process, it cannot be opened as a conscious state. besides, anyone with a dominant or auxiliary S function would have that function speaking louder than any intuitive function. see above statement of S vs N.

I don't even know what Fi charm means, it sounds vague.

you tell me. i mean, you've been implying that everything ENFPs have in levels of charm, ISFPs have too. i don't know where you are getting that Fi is working that way, but i have a hard time believing it.

You're doing it again, you are putting limits on what you think a certain type can do that just aren't there. I didn't see anything spectacular about the way he was talking and could easily see myself doing a clip like that. He is a very mature and pretty much self-actualised guy, who has been in the movie industry most his life, probably done countless interviews, ISFP or not of course he is going to be comfortable speaking to the camera! What to me is more telling is how he described his childhood, how shy, quiet and awkward he was before maturing and becoming more balanced.

i was shy as a child too; that doesn't mean i stayed that way. i was probably more introverted as a child, but i taught myself to break through it. as a result, i am more open and will talk with more people, but i still retain my energy management with being alone.

of course this does not mean that he is extroverted, but it would seem more likely at this point. or, put in another way, i have yet to see him appear introverted.

and yes, i put limits on types, because without those limits, we'd just have one big type. somehow, i don't think that would work.

When an ISFP is passionate they will talk your ear off I promise you.

i have yet to see this from any of the ISFPs i know.

i don't know why you keep arguing, you've even had compelling evidence from that other guy. i am doubtless in that he is N, and i honestly don't think you can disprove me. you've tried, but i don't really see the points in your arguments.

in retrospect i should have known not to argue with you. not because i couldn't win the argument, but because you wouldn't understand it when i did.

 

[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.

 

[Quinlan]

source please.

2 minutes in.

YouTube - Steven Spielberg Interview 1/6

 

[Wonkavision]

Well, all I have to say about the Speilberg ENFP debate is this:

ENFPs are edgy, and Speilberg is about as edgy as Mister Rogers.

 

[Sentura]

Well, all I have to say about the Speilberg ENFP debate is this:

ENFPs are edgy, and Speilberg is about as edgy as Mister Rogers.

eh, i'd not consider myself very edge. nor would i consider people like lady x (from what i have seen) very edge.

 

[Wonkavision]

eh, i'd not consider myself very edge. nor would i consider people like lady x (from what i have seen) very edge.

Well, from my point of view, Lady X is edgy.

And furthermore, the definition of "edgy" that I'm using here is "Daring, provocative, or trend-setting: ex.--an exhibition of edgy photographs; an edgy menu."

or

"Having a sharp or biting edge: ex.--an edgy wit."

 

[Sentura]

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.

 

[Lightyear]

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.

 

[heart]

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.

 

[Sentura]

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.

 

[Quinlan]

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.

 

[Southern Kross]

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.

 

[Lady_X]

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.

 

[Sentura]

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.

 

[Quinlan]

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.

 

[VagrantFarce]

...is he gone?

so it's settled, enfp!