Michelle Pfeiffer's type

[Economica]

Oh, JAVO, I forgot about that typing of yours. (I blame the red wine. :blushing

It says NP to me. We're the masters at redefining work as play, you know!

How's your rationalization of all the other signs of J going?

 

[JAVO]

Oh, JAVO, I forgot about that typing of yours. (I blame the red wine. :blushing

SFP! SFJ!

How's your rationalization of all the other signs of J going?

What signs of J?

 

[Economica]

SFP!

I would be stoked that someone called me a P even in jest if only that someone didn't in all seriousness believe Michelle Pfeiffer to be one.

 

[JAVO]

I would be stoked that someone called me a P even in jest if only that someone didn't in all seriousness believe Michelle Pfeiffer to be one.

Fixed!

 

[Economica]

Fixed!

Thank you for robbing me of my illusion that INTPs have integrity.

 

[JAVO]

Thank you for robbing me of my illusion that INTPs have integrity.

Impressive jump to a conclusion!

 

[Economica]

Impressive jump to a conclusion!

See? I can't even be P when I'm joking.

Edit: Wait, that was the point of your post, wasn't it? ... I'm afraid this un-funny IJ has run out of banter.

 

[JAVO]

See? I can't even be P when I'm joking.

I know you're joking... I'm just playing along with the light-hearted type-bashing, as I hoped to indicate by the playful smiling tongue and smiley, but I know how emoticons are a poor substitute for body language.

Edit: Wait, that was the point of your post, wasn't it? ... I'm afraid this un-funny IJ has run out of banter.

But, I'm just getting started!!! I think you're actually quite funny, and I think we've pushed ourselves to the limits of Web-based interpersonal banter and interaction.

 

[Economica]

I'm just playing along with the light-hearted type-bashing, as I hoped to indicate by the playful smiling tongue and smiley, but I know how emoticons are a poor substitute for body language.

Yeah, I know what we were doing, I'm just not all that good at it (see the edit to my last post).

No harm done. (<-- Oh wait... Here we go again. )

 

[JAVO]

Yeah, I know what we were doing, I'm just not all that good at it (see the edit to my last post).

No harm done. (<-- Oh wait... Here we go again. )

Excellent, I hope to banter again soon sometime!

Edit: So, if you had to guess, what type would you say Michelle Pfeiffer is?

 

[Economica]

Apologies to me for derailing the thread.

 

[JAVO]

Apologies to me for derailing the thread.

Yes, Economica's not going to be happy when she reads this derailment!

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I used to smoke two packs a day and I just hate being a nonsmoker... but I will never consider myself a nonsmoker because I always find smokers the most interesting people at the table.

I was considering the quote to be a flag for F, actually. Her nonidentification with nonsmokers strikes me as value-based rather than logic-based.

Yeah I think that is probably more accurate. Although such personalized values would be Fi rather than Fe.

It's definitely not Si.

Seriously, this point is really troubling me. Do you guys know ISXJs for whom it 'fits' (sorry, there's them vibes again ) that they would take pride in cleverly having gotten away with slacking?

Everyone uses all eight functions. Consistant Ni would indicate an NJ, but any other type can exhibit Ni type behavoir from time to time. This is especially true for highly intelligent people.

I'm really impatient with myself. I've always been this way. I've always wanted everything yesterday. My basic nature is dark. My essence. That doesn't mean that I'm that way all the time, but that's where I work from most often in my life. I always believe that I can do everything, and handle everything, and keep all these balls in the air, and then I don't understand why I'm hysterically crying at the end of the day and why I feel overloaded and can't sleep. It's my greatest asset and my greatest curse-that I'm so fucking self-sufficient.

Hmm... What say the INFJs (apart from cascademn), is it an improbable quote for you? Here it is again:

That certainly does not fit my wife. Her basic nature is not dark. That tends to describe thinkers more than feelers. Her darkest part is that she tends to fantasize about getting revenge in weird ways on people, but she would never act on any of it. In reality she is a harmless bunny rabbit.

Also the tendency to overwork comes from Te more than any other function. My wife has a driven nature from time to time, but it's not consistent. She doesn't have strong Te to keep her constantly focused on a goal. She works in spurts, but both STJ's and NTJ's are known from becoming chronic workaholics. This quote is indicative of a TJ.

---

I'm not a sunny kind of person. My basic nature is rather serious. I've never found that to be terribly interesting. I've always wanted to be more lighthearted, and I've become more so-with a lot of effort.

It sounds like an IJ description to me.

It could describe an IFJ, but it's really more indicative of an ITJ. There are lots of sunny IFJ's (quietly sunny, but still sunny). And while this quote could describe an INTJ, it's most indicative of an ISTJ. The ISTJ, more than any other type, tends to be the serious, pessimistic, party pooper type.

I always felt a little like an outsider looking in, even with my family. There are participants in life and there are observers, and I've always been an observer. I've been working to try to become less so, because I think it's terribly lonely and isolating to be an observer all the time. Being famous works against you when you're trying to change that.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the quote describes IJs but her saying it is indicative of her being INJ. I've heard INJs describe themselves this exact way, but not ISXJs.

I don't think this indicates S or N. It says she is an outside observer, but doesn't indicate the type of observations. Both Si and Ni are introverted perception, so they would both observe in this fashion.

You can't type someone simply on the basis of someone saying "I can relate to that". On a board dominated by IN's you are going to end up mistyping a lot of people as IN's on that basis. If someone can relate then you also need to know why. There are quite a few ways that INJ's and ISJ's are similar, so in the case of Michelle Pfeiffer it would be most productive to look at the ways where she clearly favors either N or S.

I never think I'm funny, and I'm always in these comedies. See, I don't know how this happens, or why this happens, but I always end up playing the heart of the piece. Like, in a comedy, I always end up playing the anchor, the person whose job is to be believable. And not necessarily funny. Happens to me all the time.

... In a comedy. It sounds IJ to me. I hate to admit it, but I think we're the least funny.

INJ's can be quite funny. I believe Steve Martin and Dan Aykroyd are INTJ and both are hilarious. I would not cast either as the "believable anchor" type. My wife thinks she is the funniest person in the world. In fact I find many INTJ's I encounter to be really funny, although in a deranged way. (To me this makes it even more funny though.)
A down-to-earth believable anchor does not describe an INJ. INJ's are pretty wacky in fact. Not wacky in the Ne, mind all over the place way, but in the Ni, making up really elaborate and absurd plans, type of wackiness. ISJ's on the other hand are known for being "anchors". ISJ's are dependable, practical and believable. It seems like you are trying to take away one of the SJ's most outstanding characteristics and give it to NJ's too.

If there's a lot demanded of you, working can be very sexually fulfilling. It depends on the movie, on the part.

Talking about work being sexually fulfilling? Within the assumption of IJ that says INJ to me.

I think you are confusing Ni with Te. Te is the work oriented function, not Ni.

I think I have a sadomasochistic streak, because acting is kind of brutal

Again, I think the quote spells INJ rather than ISJ. The ISJs I know are hard-working but I can't picture them saying that they must have a sadomasochistic streak in order to do what they do.

I think ITJ's tend to be more masochistic toward work and ETJ's tend to be more sadistic. I would certainly describe plenty of ISTJ's as masochistic toward their work, dutifully working lots of overtime repeatedly (sometimes without extra pay depending on the work). Plenty of INTJ's are like that too. I personally think most ITJ's are pretty nuts when it comes to their work, but that's just me.

(About The Witches of Eastwick) The first time I saw it, I hated it. It was so different than the way I had envisioned it. The original script was more of a dark comedy, as opposed to... there were no special effects; there wasn't all of that flying in the air. For me, what was interesting about it was how it played on a psychological level: the power play between men and women.

Are you equating N to liking zaney special effects and S with down-to-earth comedy? I was thinking exactly the opposite; that her interest in the psychological aspect and disinterest in special effects and action ('all that flying in the air') is indicative of N.

No I am equating Si specifically to being down to earth in every way. Se is more about special effects and action. Ne and Ni have more to do with imagination (and in a movie with witches that is going to involve magic). Si is about being realistic, none of this dreamy imagination, overblown special effects, or elaborate megalomaniacal schemes. Si is about the realistic normal interactions that everyone has like the power stuggles between men and women.

Now take someone who describes themself as serious, realistic, believable, an "anchor", dark, and a workaholic. What type does that describe? That seems to describe an ISTJ to a tee.

 

[cascadeco]

Now take someone who describes themself as serious, realistic, believable, an "anchor", dark, and a workaholic. What type does that describe? That seems to describe an ISTJ to a tee.

But MP didn't self-describe herself as 'anchor' or believable, did she?? Didn't she simply use those words to describe the typical roles she's cast in? I suppose you're going with the theory that the types of roles people are cast in most frequently are closest to their real-life personas?

Anyway, I think several other IJ types are also viewed as 'serious', but I agree that workaholic probably doesn't fit so well with INFJ, as myself and my friends don't really fit that at all.

As for realistic, all of us are quite pragmatic/logical. We're aware of reality, even though we may not like it. This is where the cynical side comes in.

As for dark, I don't think any of us would describe ourselves as 'dark'. However, 3 of us 4 definitely have periods where we are quite cynical and down about things. So we're not really sunshiney people either! Although we can be...depends on the mood.

And wouldn't INTJ/INTP sometimes self-descript as dark?? I guess I don't see this as being type specific.

Eh...I really don't care at this point; just throwing in a few more of my thoughts. My intent isn't even to push for her being INFJ, as I'm doubtful that she is - but I'm equally doubtful on the ISTJ thing. I don't have any good real-life examples of ISTJ's to compare her with, as my mother, who is an unhealthier ISTJ without as high an IQ, comes across completely differently from MP -- it's like apples to oranges.

Any ISTJ's on the board who could chime in and view the clips and comment on the quotes??

 

[JivinJeffJones]

She is clearly INFP. The workaholic thing is what throws people, I suspect. But INFPs are known for their perfectionism when it comes to things they are interested in/care about. When it comes to acting, I think INXPs would be exactly the type to want to be extremely prepared so they can have a solid base from which to wing it. Her quotes reek of Fi. The dark side stuff is particularly telling, to my mind. I could go on, Johnny Depp style, but 1) I don't have the energy atm and 2) I am (as I mentioned earlier) deeply suspicious of a confirmation bias. However, every quote I read resonated with me deeply as an INFP.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

But MP didn't self-describe herself as 'anchor' or believable, did she?? Didn't she simply use those words to describe the typical roles she's cast in? I suppose you're going with the theory that the types of roles people are cast in most frequently are closest to their real-life personas?

This is a valid point. She may be type cast differently from her personality. Although if she is consistently cast that way it could mean that anything too zany or weird is beyond her acting range. She seems to be choosy in some ways about the roles she picks, but she likes to stay with the "anchor" type roles. I don't think it's too far fetched to say that it reflects her personality, since she consistently chooses these roles while turning down others.

Anyway, I think several other IJ types are also viewed as 'serious', but I agree that workaholic probably doesn't fit so well with INFJ, as myself and my friends don't really fit that at all.

As for realistic, all of us are quite pragmatic/logical. We're aware of reality, even though we don't like it. This is where the cynical side comes in.

As for dark, I don't think any of us would describe ourselves as 'dark'. However, 3 of us 4 definitely have periods where we are quite cynical and down about things. So we're not really sunshiney people either.

Moody is probably a better description than either "dark" or "sunshiney". My wife can be sunshiney on some days, and other days she can be very down over the slightest thing. She can easily go from ecstatic to depressed and back again over things which are relatively minor.

Eh...I really don't care at this point; just throwing in a few more of my thoughts. I don't have any good real-life examples of ISTJ's to compare her with, as my mother, who is an unhealthier ISTJ without as high an IQ, comes across completely differently from MP -- it's like apples to oranges.

Any ISTJ's on the board who could chime in and view the clips and comment on the quotes??

Yes, it would be nice if a female ISTJ or ISFJ could add $.02. The quotes seem to paint her as ISTJ, but when I watch the interviews there is not one type that really jumps out at me. (Although she is a talented actress, so you can only get so much from reading her type in an interview.)

 

[Economica]

I think you are confusing Ni with Te. Te is the work oriented function, not Ni.

What I meant was that I find it indicative of N to describe one's work as being sexually fulfilling.

I would certainly describe plenty of ISTJ's as masochistic toward their work, dutifully working lots of overtime repeatedly (sometimes without extra pay depending on the work).

I agree, but my point was (again) that they wouldn't describe themselves that way.

No I am equating Si specifically to being down to earth in every way. Se is more about special effects and action. Ne and Ni have more to do with imagination (and in a movie with witches that is going to involve magic). Si is about being realistic, none of this dreamy imagination, overblown special effects, or elaborate megalomaniacal schemes. Si is about the realistic normal interactions that everyone has like the power stuggles between men and women.

Are you ser-... Never mind. I disagree that a preference for psychology over special effects and action in a movie is indicative of down-to-earth Si. For instance, the movie I recommended earlier, Dangerous Liaisons, is nothing but psychology, and in my experience it almost constitutes a test of the N/S preference - with Ns (or at least dominant Ns) finding it witty and sublimely understated (enjoying not having everything spelled out) and Ss finding it boring and not understanding the (N) characters.

She is clearly INFP. The workaholic thing is what throws people, I suspect. But INFPs are known for their perfectionism when it comes to things they are interested in/care about. When it comes to acting, I think INXPs would be exactly the type to want to be extremely prepared so they can have a solid base from which to wing it. Her quotes reek of Fi. The dark side stuff is particularly telling, to my mind. I could go on, Johnny Depp style, but 1) I don't have the energy atm and 2) I am (as I mentioned earlier) deeply suspicious of a confirmation bias. However, every quote I read resonated with me deeply as an INFP.

Hey, JJJ, you were right about Johnny Depp. You have considerable typing cred in my book.

INFP could make sense to me, especially the smoker quote and the dark side stuff, as you point out. (Dominant Fi would also explain our difficulty determining N/S.) I don't actually know any female INFPs IRL though for comparison. (I so need to get out and type more people. )

What say the female INFPs (and those who know them well)?

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

What I meant was that I find it indicative of N to describe one's work as being sexually fulfilling.

I agree, but my point was (again) that they wouldn't describe themselves that way.

And you accuse me of reaching? I don't really see why that constitutes a strong N preference. I do admit that if I was to think of a type that would describe their work as sexually fulfilling then INTJ would be the first type to pop into my head. But INFJ would not be the second type. Rather that is the type of thing I'd expect from a TJ in general. Are you suggesting S's are unlikely to use metaphors? That doesn't seem accurate to me.

Are you ser-... Never mind. I disagree that a preference for psychology over special effects and action in a movie is indicative of down-to-earth Si. For instance, the movie I recommended earlier, Dangerous Liaisons, is nothing but psychology, and in my experience it almost constitutes a test of the N/S preference - with Ns (or at least dominant Ns) finding it witty and sublimely understated (enjoying not having everything spelled out) and Ss finding it boring and not understanding the (N) characters.

That is not a movie I've seen, so I can't comment on it. But I can say that it is very hard for me to think of a movie that would be strongly preferred by most N's and hardly preferred by most S's. Often times movies that I would think have a strong N preference don't appeal to my N friends and vice versa. About the only movies that I think qualify are those Richard Linklater movies like "Slacker" and "Waking Life" which can barely be considered movies, since they have no plot and are just a bunch of random conversations. I think these appeal mostly to Ne types, but they are so unusual compared to other movies that they are easy to identify. Beyond that I haven't really found any movies that N's flock to and S's stay away from. (Generally making a movie only for N's will kill your profits.)

Hey, JJJ, you were right about Johnny Depp. You have considerable typing cred in my book.

INFP could make sense to me, especially the smoker quote and the dark side stuff, as you point out. (Dominant Fi would also explain our difficulty determining N/S.) I don't actually know any female INFPs IRL though for comparison. (I so need to get out and type more people. )

What say the female INFPs (and those who know them well)?

Heh, well I've always thought Johnny Depp is INFP as well, but I really don't think Michelle Pfeiffer is. If you want someone to play the believable "anchor", then INFP is probably the last type that I'd look toward. :rolli: Talented INFP actors tend to be the most easy to spot if you pay attention to how they create their characters. INFP's tend to make the most elaborate fictional characters, where even the smallest details of the character's personality and background are thought out and yet the character can be like nothing you've seen before. INFP's tend to think out every single aspect of their character's personality far beyond what they even have to. When I watch them it seems like they have the fewest "cracks in their armor" as far as character consistency goes. This is the type of thing you see from both Johnny Depp and Joaquin Pheonix.

Michelle Pfeiffer plays to different strengths though. She always has an amazing screen "presence". She can establish a mood and intesity that sucks you in and grabs your attention like few others. This is the same type of thing you see in other IJ actors like Robert De Niro and Anthony Hopkins. As I've said before you can find talented actors of any type, but each type is also going to have different strengths. MP is using the strengths of an IJ, and not of an INFP.

 

[JivinJeffJones]

Heh, well I've always thought Johnny Depp is INFP as well, but I really don't think Michelle Pfeiffer is. If you want someone to play the believable "anchor", then INFP is probably the last type that I'd look toward. :rolli: Talented INFP actors tend to be the most easy to spot if you pay attention to how they create their characters. INFP's tend to make the most elaborate fictional characters, where even the smallest details of the character's personality and background are thought out and yet the character can be like nothing you've seen before. INFP's tend to think out every single aspect of their character's personality far beyond what they even have to. When I watch them it seems like they have the fewest "cracks in their armor" as far as character consistency goes. This is the type of thing you see from both Johnny Depp and Joaquin Pheonix.

I think you're underestimating the INFP ability for being painfully serious. Sure, they can be silly. But they live primarily in the world of Fi, which is a very serious place indeed. People in these forums sometimes fail to understand that, I think. I suspect that INFPs are often silly and flippant because interactions with the outside world can seem like a bit of a holiday from what is going on inside them. While INFPs may enjoy playing/creating silly and very strange roles, if the script has sufficient depth and/or anguish they would have no problem buying into it.

Another feature of the INFP which lends itself to playing believable roles is the fact that INFPs value authenticity. This may seem anathema to an acting career, but I think it ties in quite well. It means the INFP will say their lines in a way that seems natural (or believable) for them, which is vital given that lines which seem natural written down frequently seem unforgivably corny when spoken aloud. The average INFP (and ENFP) cannot abide cliched and stereotyped communication. For this reason, I think INFPs would either select scripts which they can relate to and believe, or they alter their lines somewhat so that they can deliver them in the way which seems least fake to them. ENFPs also have this tendency, but often either prefer the silly route or get so carried away inserting mannerisms they have noticed through their Ne that their characters quickly become a parody (which is just another form of the silly route). That is all I have the energy for atm.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I think you're underestimating the INFP ability for being painfully serious.

No, if anything I am overestimating the INFP ability to be serious. INFP's aren't just serious, they are painfully serious. ISJ's are believably serious. INFP's are painfully serious. I'm sure this is quite believable to an INF, but to most other people it is so intense that it comes across more as "dramatic license", i.e. sometimes you use heightened language and emotion to emphasize a point, and it should be beyond normal believability. It's epic rather than believable.

Whether the INFP is playing a serious, or a less than serious role, I would not describe them as "the anchor". In Lord of the Rings, Sam is "the anchor", but Frodo is the INFP character. He's serious, but in an intense or larger than life way.

Another feature of the INFP which lends itself to playing believable roles is the fact that INFPs value authenticity.

We can both agree that Johnny Depp is an INFP, but he is not known for playing believable roles. They are usually anything but. Edward Scissorhands, Jack Sparrow, Willy Wonka, etc... none of these characters is what I would describe as "the anchor".