Lady_X
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2008
- Messages
- 18,235
- MBTI Type
- ENFP
- Enneagram
- 784
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/sp
Isn't Keanu Reeves ENFJ!
i know...intj?? but actually i kinda thought enfp but maybe enfj ??
Isn't Keanu Reeves ENFJ!
i know...intj?? but actually i kinda thought enfp but maybe enfj ??
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.
feel free to give me examples of SPs overstepping boundaries. so far i haven't seen any.
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?
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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?
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".
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.
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.
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.
I don't even know what Fi charm means, it sounds vague.
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.
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.
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.
I er, uh, think John F. Kennedy is uh, the er, uh, best ESTP in the uh, world!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.