Mort Belfry
Rats off to ya!
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,238
- MBTI Type
- INTP
Wow. Two New Zealand ISFPs in the same thread. I knew we were overrun. Bring back the calicivirus.
i searched around for someone that could uphold this. i found nothing. care to link to source of this?
When the _NF_ descriptions are lacking the abstract focus on meaning and purpose, they do not differentiate between Idealist temperament and the Feeling function.... we have found that a vast number of_ S_Ps select "N" responses rather than the "S" responses on the MBTI® , Their behavior and reports have been taken as typical of those with a preference for N. Because of not using the added information in the temperament model or not paying close attention to Jung's definitions and Myers descriptions, the observations of people with _S_P preferences have filtered back into the mainstream definitions of N. When we go back to Jung's descriptions, we find these descriptions have veered off course from the original meaning.
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.
He's the founder of the Shoah Foundation, which is a pretty big deal.
He's a relentlessly optimistic, likeable person who talked his way onto the Universal lot when he was a teenager and set up an office for himself.
Also, it only takes a cursory glance at his movies to see layers of meaning and depth; the biggest criticism of his films is that they're often too manipulative of their audience, not that they lack depth (this is why films like Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan were such surprises).
Also, if you take any stock in this sort of thing, you can trace his function development through his life. He has described himself as someone who "didn't want to grow up" and someone who was running away from responsibility. He notoriously didn't come to terms with his own jewish heritage for a long time. Nowadays he's constantly praising the need for a stable family. On the Actors Studio he says that he values people who "don't just listen to other people, but listen to themselves...most people listen to the shout, rather than the whisper." YouTube - Inside The Actor's Studio Steven Spielberg 1
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.
hmmm... Realising its been a while since my 'doors years' I decided to do a short revisit of the man via the internet. And I'll be darned, you seem to be right. The guy was probably enfp.
LOL ENFP screwed up period. Makes you wonder!
Why wouldn't there be? To say that they're all the same, you're saying that they will all have the same level of functional development and that their functional abilities have set limits, which has nothing to do with MBTI or Jungian theory.
I don't want him to be ISFP, I just think he is. SPs don't step over boundaries? Where is this stated in theory? What I mean is someone with very well developed functions will be taken for many types. I just think he is more artisan than idealist.
That is a forum member's list so holds no more validity than anyone other member's opinion here.
But his primary focus seems like it has never been social change, more like social impact. I envision the greatest ENFP as someone who fought for radical social change/upheavel, a revolutionary.
Doesn't rule out ISFP.
ISFP is also described as eternally child-like.
correct, it has nothing to do with MBTI or jungian theory. it has to do with something as simple as being subjective. there are no average ISFPs, nor are there any great ones. everyone in their type, as far as objectivism goes, is equal. that they may have merit because they have done some outstanding achievements is an entirely different matter; but even then, i never measured "averageness" or "greatness" in number of achievements, but the impact of said achievements.
first off, i get the feeling you take MBTI as being the complete truth; that nothing stated outside of MBTI can be true. this is a wrong assumption.
secondly, what i meant to say was that it isn't in the mind of the SP to overstep boundaries - that is what NPs do.
which would include yours as well, and ironically, also the quote above.
i think you're romantizing ENFPs a bit. i think most if not all ENFPs would say that they would be content doing what they believe is right, but more so, they would work with what they love and what their passion. each ENFP changes the world in their own way. it is obvious to me that spielberg is very passionate about creating movies, and i'm sure he has inspired people into changing their ways or beliefs.
an introvert walking into universal studios and talk his way into getting an office? i doubt that very much,
and it would make even less sense if he was S. ENPs on the other hand, have a tendency being charismatic enough to get things their way, and would have the "balls" to walk into an organization to do just that.
mmmmmmmno. ISFPs still abide their S, while ENFPs don't abide anything. there is a certain naivety that only ENFPs can have, and that is exactly what makes them so childlike; as well as creating the belief that no one person is a bad person. this is also part of their charm.
as for the entire SP versus NF thing:
when i was new to the MBTI types and couldn't analyze people well, it is true that i observed little difference between SPs and Ns. however, with further understanding, i have been able to decipher the differences. this makes me believe that altruistic love is a NF trait, not a Fi trait. SFi would show love locally, whereas NFi shows love globally.
it is also worth pointing out that part of this NFi is what gives ENFPs their charm.
I don't take MBTI seriously at all but if I'm going to have a conversation about someone's MBTI type then we need to both stick within the bounds of the MBTI theory, otherwise we are talking about something else other than an MBTI type, while that might be interesting it's not really relevant. How am I to agree to it when I don't know what context you're using?
That is just a huge generalisation, how does this apply to specific situations? I would agree that an NP might be more inclined to overstep abstract boundaries and an SP more inclined to overstep more concrete boundaries but there is nothing stopping either type doing the other thing. Nothing in the theory states what types can and can't do, there is very little mention of potential or any limits on that potential.
Of course, we're just chucking ideas around aren't we? Or do you know the absolute truth of all these matters?
This to me, doesn't indicate one way or the other.
Hmm well thanks for telling half the population what they can't do, I'm sure they'll appreciate that. :rolli:
It was a chance encounter, who knows exactly what they saw in him on that day? perhaps it was just his raw enthusiasm and curiosity, something ISFPs have in spades. I don't think he would've needed much "talking into" or charisma to get an unpaid job. I don't think balls had much to do with it, he was an enthusiastic and curious SP that disregarded concrete boundaries.
He marched to the beat of his own drum obviously.
What exactly does "abiding our S" mean? "No one person is a bad person" could be believed by anyone with Fi, anyone at all actually.
does anyone have any good examples that are not musicians or actors?
Syptg and Lady X are fine examples of ENFP.
Who is the greatest INTJ ever? etc. Like figureheads for the potential of each type.
He is ILE in socionics so most likely an ENP.
For ex, I incline to ISTP for Spielberg.
feel free to argument for this decision. also feel free to browse through the discussion about spielberg.
Feel free to browse the forum about my method and prefered argumentation style.