• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Oprah Winfrey

R

ReflecTcelfeR

Guest
I think we should be looking for Ne or Se specifically if we've already decided Fe… And another thought I just had is the fact that even if she is "successful" it doesn't make her healthy so the type confusion we're seeing may be the result of imbalance of functional development. Just an idea and the fact that she may have been manipulated into the motivational beliefs that she has because if I remember correctly she was abused sexually as a child… That'd make me want to defend things much more vehemently even if it weren't something that motivated the most.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
To me, it's one of the most meaningless pursuits on this forum especially when it comes down to the sort of arguing tactics you're using here ("If you disagree with me, you're just being biased"). PLease.
I find her arguing tactics to be nothing but reasonable inquiry. Also, based on the evidence provided in this thread (I have not seen 10 minutes of Oprah in my life), her conclusion makes the most sense.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
Yeah, way to gaslight there.

I've known my share of ESFJs and ENFJs in real life, and she doesn't scan as ESFJ to me whatsoever; I think Oprah done by an ESFJ would have been implemented much differently and been focused more on practicalities.

But it seems pointless to argue type on an online forum, everyone has their own perceptions and no way to reconcile them... and honestly, why does it even matter what type she is? To me, it's one of the most meaningless pursuits on this forum especially when it comes down to the sort of arguing tactics you're using here ("If you disagree with me, you're just being biased"). PLease.

I'm finding it difficult to refrain from ridiculing you for your improper use of the word "gaslight," especially since I know that you only said it because it came up in that other thread. For the sake of civility, then, I'll just go ahead and ask you: how is anything I said in the paragraph you quoted an example of the following?

Those who engage in gaslighting create a reaction -- whether it's anger, frustration, sadness -- in the person they are dealing with. Then, when that person reacts, the gaslighter makes them feel uncomfortable and insecure by behaving as if their feelings aren't rational or normal.

Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse in which false information is presented with the intent of making a victim doubt his or her own memory and perception.

If we boiled down what I said, it would simply be that I thought she was ESxJ (leaning ESFJ) because her standout characteristics are that she's (1) hard-working, (2) detail-oriented, (3) over-achieving, and (4) gifted at public speaking. And that it would be ridiculous to suggest (as I knew someone would eventually) that those four traits, which are so outstandingly ESJ, are also shared in equal measure by ENFJs.

ENFJs may work hard (though I doubt they're a type people would call "detail-oriented," in any case) in their lives, but most likely they are going to be known for other qualities. Otherwise an ENFJ would be exactly the same as an ESFJ, because traits (1) through (3) are standout SJ qualities.

Please let me know how any of what I said constitutes psychological abuse, and to whom I was aiming this abuse.

I'm not in the mood to convince on this particular topic. If I wanted to prove that the sky is blue because of refraction, etc., I would. But sometimes, simply looking is enough.

Except when you can't see straight and you start calling a red wall the blue sky.
 

chickpea

perfect person
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
5,729
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
seems enfj to me. since when are being hard working and an overachiever only sj traits?
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
seems enfj to me. since when are being hard working and an overachiever only sj traits?

They are standout SJ traits. A lot of people work hard, but it's something you're going to notice and remember about an SJ.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
They are standout SJ traits. A lot of people work hard, but it's something you're going to notice and remember about an SJ.

The distinction you should be looking for here is one of optimism/pessimism, or idealism/realism. Not "hard work" vs. ?, no matter how much I may notice it about someone.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
The distinction you should be looking for here is one of optimism/pessimism, or idealism/realism. Not "hard work" vs. ?, no matter how much I may notice it about someone.

Yes, because these are things we can determine from watching interviews.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Yes, because these are things we can determine from watching interviews.

"Watching interviews." You're true to type, I can say that much. Chana is right about SJ not being the only over-achieving type. And why can't you have an SJ who is a complete slouch? It's a good point, but only a negative point. It does not say what is, but only what isn't. Skeptics are never burdened with the task of determining what is.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
"Watching interviews." You're true to type, I can say that much. Chana is right about SJ not being the only over-achieving type. And why can't you have an SJ who is a complete slouch? It's a good point, but only a negative point. It does not say what is, but only what isn't. Skeptics are never burdened with the task of determining what is.

Wait, are you saying chana is an S? You're verging on incoherent right now.
 

Haven

Blind Guardian
Joined
Apr 26, 2011
Messages
1,075
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Enneagram
2w3
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
according to my sources she is a 3w4 so/sx and I see no reason to doubt it.
She's probably ENFJ too.
 

Elfboy

Certified Sausage Smoker
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
9,625
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
according to my sources she is a 3w4 so/sx and I see no reason to doubt it.
She's probably ENFJ too.

I would say 3w2 more than 3w4. I don't see much 4, but there is a ton of 2
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Yeah, I lean more strongly towards ESFJ than ESTJ (because she seems to thrive on Fe), but I see nothing but ESxJ in her. She was known for being an over-achieving, hard-working, hyper-involved child with a knack for public speaking. She has even said herself that she attributes her success to early ambition and a belief in hard work and dilligence. Moreover, she is quite infamous for her nit-picking, detail-mongering ways (as well as for her megalomania, but I don't think that's type-related.)
Yes, she is very "Choleric", which is "In Charge", and fits ENFJ, not ESFJ, which is "Get Things Going" or Sanguine. (They get this bad rap of being so controlling and all, but they are really more people-focused than that, while Oprah is ultimately task-focused, on the surface social level. She is, however, people-focused on the "conative" level).
 

lunalum

Super Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
2,706
MBTI Type
ZNTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
If we boiled down what I said, it would simply be that I thought she was ESxJ (leaning ESFJ) because her standout characteristics are that she's (1) hard-working, (2) detail-oriented, (3) over-achieving, and (4) gifted at public speaking. And that it would be ridiculous to suggest (as I knew someone would eventually) that those four traits, which are so outstandingly ESJ, are also shared in equal measure by ENFJs.

ENFJs may work hard (though I doubt they're a type people would call "detail-oriented," in any case) in their lives, but most likely they are going to be known for other qualities. Otherwise an ENFJ would be exactly the same as an ESFJ, because traits (1) through (3) are standout SJ qualities.

(2) Detail-oriented may be a standout SJ quality but I'm not so sure that (1) hardworking, and (3) overachieving, are. There's a slight J-ness to those but not necessarily SJ. For example ENTJs are also classic overachievers.


This could be personal type bias but I'd say she's way too quick to hop onto the conspiracy theory bandwagon (e.g. The Secret) to be an ESFJ. Not that ESFJs wouldn't do that, but I don't think I've ever seen Si-skepticism in Oprah before. Or really, any kind of skepticism. She just enthusiastically accepts any ideas that come her way.

Could she be an ENFP?

Well, how she was on the show was very heavily extraverted, so any SiTi style skepticism she may harbor personally was probably covered in her FePe image. I have considered ENFP but she just seems too... naturally J, to be dominant perceiving. There can be some similarities between Fe and Ne types and she seems to have a bit of a blend but she still reads overall as a more Fe type to me at least. This is also why I think she could be ESFJ rather than ENFJ.

For the record, I do not type people based on some sort of sensor quota system. If it seems that way, it's simply because there is, not a tendency, but more like a rule in this subforum that everybody is a goddamn N of some sort. You'd think that, given the accepted statistical proportions of types ("SJs rule the world, boo fucking hoo me"), someone will have noticed the ridiculousness of this behavior. And, admittedly, many have noticed, but the rule remains. I type Ns as Ns when they display characteristics of their type.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18519&p=1112216&viewfull=1#post1112216

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12115&p=466190&viewfull=1#post466190

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11840&p=454695&viewfull=1#post454695

What do these three links of character's types have in common? How about the amount of Ss? I'd love to play with your theory but just had to point out at first that what you keep stating as fact is wrong.

Do you actually see strong Sness in characters that are being typed as N here, or do you just suspect something because less than 75% of the characters are being typed as S?
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
(2) Detail-oriented may be a standout SJ quality but I'm not so sure that (1) hardworking, and (3) overachieving, are. There's a slight J-ness to those but not necessarily SJ. For example ENTJs are also classic overachievers.

No, you have to put them all together. If you have a person who is known for their hard work and diligence, for believing in and extolling the virtues of hard work and diligence, who was also an over-achiever in the classic sense (i.e., joined a bunch of shit at school, organized events for underprivileged groups, etc.,) AND notoriously detail-oriented, you have an SJ. You can rationalize all of these individual points away all you want, but if you put them all together the portrait they paint is undeniable. Also, I've always understood these "ENTJs are hard working over-achievers" claims to mean, not so much that they're the kid at school who joins every club and heads up every event because they're obsessed with attaining institutional success, but rather that their work, whatever it may be, is probably going to hold first priority in their lives.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18519&p=1112216&viewfull=1#post1112216

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12115&p=466190&viewfull=1#post466190

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11840&p=454695&viewfull=1#post454695

What do these three links of character's types have in common? How about the amount of Ss? I'd love to play with your theory but just had to point out at first that what you keep stating as fact is wrong.

They have in common an absurd tendency to type overwhelmingly S characters as Ns. Harry, one of the most S characters of all time, was frequently typed as INFP in that thread (second-most only to ISFP, thank God, and that doesn't even happen in other threads with less attention.) Luckily, I think people started to see the light after Sim made arguments for ISFP, but still, what the hell is that? Even worse was Hermione. INTJ, INFJ, ENFJ. It wasn't until later that she started getting more ISTJ votes, likely because I and a few others were personally arguing ISTJ from the early stages of the thread. Don't even get me started on Snape. All of these characters were so obviously S that I have no other way of explaining the ubiquitous N typings in that thread.

Someone even tried to call Umbridge an ENFJ, and Draco an ENTJ. Sure, if Umbridge is an ENFJ, then Oprah could be one, too. But If that's the case, then ENFJ is the same as ESFJ for all intents and purposes. And Draco was an obvious ESTJ.

Do you actually see strong Sness in characters that are being typed as N here, or do you just suspect something because less than 75% of the characters are being typed as S?

Both. The percentage is less, too, if we narrowed it down to SJs.

And, um, why would I have a problem with typing Ss as Ns if I didn't think that they were, in fact, Ss?

Yes, she is very "Choleric", which is "In Charge", and fits ENFJ, not ESFJ, which is "Get Things Going" or Sanguine. (They get this bad rap of being so controlling and all, but they are really more people-focused than that, while Oprah is ultimately task-focused, on the surface social level. She is, however, people-focused on the "conative" level).

Those things you bolded are not choleric traits. Perhaps you can argue the megalomania is "choleric," but truly, any type can have an inflated ego.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Individually, they are not necessarily Choleric, but all together they are a good evidence of it.
 

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Maybe we should ask [MENTION=9627]DavidM[/MENTION].....
 
R

Riva

Guest
I have never ever in my life watched her show.

:shock:....

Anyway from the little little clips I have seen it seems she wishes to emit a certain type of image.

So 3W2 makes a bit of sense.

Ps -

I have never watched Pride and Prejudiced either.

Girls love it I've noticed.
 
Top