The Godfather

[evilrobot]

Vito Corleone ENTJ
Michael INTJ
Sonny ESTP
Fredo ESFP

 

[simulatedworld]

Swap Vito and Michael. Vito's F seems stronger--he really cared about bringing the five families together for peace, to end the violence, despite the traumatic attempt on his life. I could potentially even see as Vito as INFJ, but that might be a stretch.

Michael, on the other hand, is ruthless--doesn't give a shit about his father's ideals and is interested only in controlling and dominating. I see Michael as the quintessential ENTJ.

Also I see Fredo as more of an ISFP, but I guess that's debatable.

 

[teslashock]

imho...

Vito ENFJ
Michael ENTJ
Sonny ESTP
Fredo ESFP
Connie ISFP
Tom ISTJ
Kay INFP

 

[evilrobot]

Swap Vito and Michael. Vito's F seems stronger--he really cared about bringing the five families together for peace, to end the violence, despite the traumatic attempt on his life. I could potentially even see as Vito as INFJ, but that might be a stretch.

Michael, on the other hand, is ruthless--doesn't give a shit about his father's ideals and is interested only in controlling and dominating. I see Michael as the quintessential ENTJ.

Vito was definitely more E than Michael. ENFJ, perhaps, but not INFJ. Yet he was a gangster who made ruthless “T” decisions all the time, and was never an idealist. Still, he was family man who wanted peace and stability in the gangster realm, and had a way with people. A level-headed ENTJ with strong Fe.

Michael, on the other hand, started out as an idealist who wanted no part in the family business. He was a visionary and behind-the-scenes mastermind, was never comfortable in social settings and kept his own counsel. Even after he took over, his long range plan was to make the family business legit, though he had a very ruthless, end justififies the means way of going about it. INTJ with strong tertiary Fi.

 

[simulatedworld]

Vito was definitely more E than Michael. ENFJ, perhaps, but not INFJ. Yet he was a gangster who made ruthless “T” decisions all the time, and was never an idealist. Still, he was family man who wanted peace and stability in the gangster realm, and had a way with people. A level-headed ENTJ with strong Fe.

ENTJ is not an Fe type. Even in 8-function interpretations of typology, Fe is a weak background process for ENTJ at best. ENTJs use Fi and, depending on whose interpretation you believe, either less Fe than Fi or no Fe at all.

Michael, on the other hand, started out as an idealist who wanted no part in the family business. He was a visionary and behind-the-scenes mastermind, was never comfortable in social settings and kept his own counsel. Even after he took over, his long range plan was to make the family business legit, though he had a very ruthless, end justififies the means way of going about it. INTJ with strong tertiary Fi.

What was so idealistic about him? He certainly wasn't opposed to having a violent profession--if you recall the first film, he was in the military before getting involved with the family business.

He never really intended to make the family legitimate; he just wanted Kate to think that because she disapproved of his illicit lifestyle. He lied to her a lot in order to maintain control.

He responds to threats and problems with classic Te+Se rage. Obviously both NTJ types can do this, but I don't think INTJs tend to show as much overt anger as Michael does on numerous occasions.

And what makes you think he was uncomfortable in social situations? I don't recall any examples of that.

 

[Fecal McAngry]

Vito Corleone ENTJ
Michael INTJ
Sonny ESTP
Fredo ESFP

I don't argue fictional characters, generally anyway, but as to the actors--

Marlon Brando: INFP
Al Pacino: INFP
James Caan: ESFP
John Cazale: ENFP
Robert Duvall: SFP (I suspect ESFP but not certain)

Robert De Niro, another INFP, later played young Vito...

Francis Ford Coppola is an ENFP, and along with Martin Scorsese, another ENFP, probably the most actor-friendly director of that time period.

 

[evilrobot]

ENTJ is not an Fe type. Even in 8-function interpretations of typology, Fe is a weak background process for ENTJ at best. ENTJs use Fi and, depending on whose interpretation you believe, either less Fe than Fi or no Fe at all.



What was so idealistic about him? He certainly wasn't opposed to having a violent profession--if you recall the first film, he was in the military before getting involved with the family business.

He never really intended to make the family legitimate; he just wanted Kate to think that because she disapproved of his illicit lifestyle. He lied to her a lot in order to maintain control.

He responds to threats and problems with classic Te+Se rage. Obviously both NTJ types can do this, but I don't think INTJs tend to show as much overt anger as Michael does on numerous occasions.

And what makes you think he was uncomfortable in social situations? I don't recall any examples of that.

Anyone can have strong usage of a function outside the textbook order. The fact is, Vito had good use of both Te and Fe and he was an extravert. You’re saying he’s an INFJ, how do you see him as being Ni dominant?

Michael not an idealist? He was strongly opposed to the family business, unlike his brothers who didn’t think twice about it. He enlisted in the military against his father’s wishes (who had the connections to get him out of being drafted) because he believed in the war. This may all be more evident in the book, but I thought it was pretty clear in the film as well that he was drawn as a high-minded idealist (but an NT kind of idealist, not an NF), as opposed to his father, who was pragmatic and mainly cared about looking after his own people.

Michael did want to make the family business legit, that never changed (I’m pretty sure that was also indicated in the 3rd movie, but I haven’t seen that in ages), but he realized it would take much longer than he thought and that he could not avoid making ruthless choices; he had to accept that or be wiped out. At the end of the day, he was a T who did what had to be done. And trust me, INTJs can lose their temper as much as ENTJs. Michael's pattern was one of suppressed rage that errupted when he was under pressure, and he was usually under quite a bit of pressure.

 

[simulatedworld]

I don't see how Fe and Te can occupy the same person, but that's beside the point. (This gets into functions as value systems vs. functions as singular actions, but you can wall post or PM me if you care to discuss that.) If his Fe was higher than his Fi he would, by definition, not be an ENTJ.

As for Michael I can see INTJ as a plausible alternative, but think ENTJ fits marginally better. Note that many fictional characters have poorly defined I/E lines.

On another note--

I think Tom is ISFJ, not ISTJ. Nobody else besides tesla seems to have commented on him.

 

[evilrobot]

I don't see how Fe and Te can occupy the same person, but that's beside the point. (This gets into functions as value systems vs. functions as singular actions, but you can wall post or PM me if you care to discuss that.) If his Fe was higher than his Fi he would, by definition, not be an ENTJ.

On another note--

I think Tom is ISFJ, not ISTJ. Nobody else besides tesla seems to have commented on him.

A lot of EJs use both extraverted judging functions well (Te and Fe). Plus Fi is the inferior function of ENTJ, so I’m not sure where you get that ENTJs use Fi more than Fe.

I also lean toward ISFJ for Tom, but I’m not positive.

 

[simulatedworld]

A lot of EJs use both extraverted functions well (Te and Fe). Plus Fi is the inferior function of ENTJ, so I’m not sure where you get that ENTJs use Fi more than Fe.

I also lean toward ISFJ for Tom, but I’m not positive.

I got it from Psychological Types, where Jung says that using the four non-preferred functions, if possible at all (which he is uncertain of), would require "tremendous expenditure of energy."

In Jung's functional theory, each type prefers one form of each of the four functions N, S, T and F. So being an NTJ means that one prefers Ni over Ne, Se over Si, Te over Ti and Fi over Fe. He does not ever explicitly say that we can or cannot use the four other functions, but he does make it clear that the four standard ones are the preferred forms--ergo, ENTJ prefers Fi to Fe (if he even uses Fe at all.)

Your conception of "using functions" is inconsistent with Jung's definition of what a function actually is. It doesn't matter what you did; it only matters why you did it. You're not actually "using Fe" unless you did something because you believe in Fe's values purely for their own sake. Even if you did something that "looked Fe" on the surface, if you did it to appease a more important Te value, then Te is the real function at work. (e.g., "I should give an appearance of respecting other people's cultural values because that's the most effective way to get what I want" is Te, even though it involves doing something that appears Fe on the surface.)

When you say that EJs are often "good at both Te and Fe" you seem to be associating Te and Fe with particular tasks rather than underlying value systems. Correct me if I'm wrong, here, but your reasoning seems to be that if someone is good at logically organizing outer world tasks to get stuff done and also good at harmonizing with group-oriented values, he must be using both Te and Fe, but this is a mistake based on the misconception that functions are equated with singular actions.

They are not. Functions are value systems that make up the building blocks of one's worldview. If we want to understand Vito's functional makeup, we need to look for the ultimate root motivation for his behavior, in the most fundamental components of his value system--not simply label surface actions as "using" this or that function.

 

[Fecal McAngry]

Correct me if I'm wrong, here, but your reasoning seems to be that if someone is good at logically organizing outer world tasks to get stuff done and also good at harmonizing with group-oriented values, he must be using both Te and Fe, but this is a mistake based on the misconception that functions are equated with singular actions.

They are not. Functions are value systems that make up the building blocks of one's worldview. If we want to understand Vito's functional makeup, we need to look for the ultimate root motivation for his behavior, in the most fundamental components of his value system--not simply label surface actions as "using" this or that function.

Having spent a lot of time around ENFJs (and other FJs), I can tell you that they are good at organizing things and getting things done, but they don't do it in anything resembling a TJ fashion...

 

[simulatedworld]

Having spent a lot of time around ENFJs (and other FJs), I can tell you that they are good at organizing things and getting things done, but they don't do it in anything resembling a TJ fashion...

Indeed. And it would be a mistake to declare that they are "using Te" simply because they're good at many of the same tasks that Te users are good at. It's motivation, not action!

I've seen ENTJs do a stellar job of showing overt respect for the values and emotions of others in order to complete some goal that they want. This does not mean they're "using Fe"; it just means that Te recognizes the strategic value in giving off this appearance (and/or that Fi has a personal, subjective belief that it's important to respect people's feelings.)

 

[evilrobot]

I got it from Psychological Types, where Jung says that using the four non-preferred functions, if possible at all (which he is uncertain of), would require "tremendous expenditure of energy."

In Jung's functional theory, each type prefers one form of each of the four functions N, S, T and F. So being an NTJ means that one prefers Ni over Ne, Se over Si, Te over Ti and Fi over Fe. He does not ever explicitly say that we can or cannot use the four other functions, but he does make it clear that the four standard ones are the preferred forms--ergo, ENTJ prefers Fi to Fe (if he even uses Fe at all.)

Your conception of "using functions" is inconsistent with Jung's definition of what a function actually is. It doesn't matter what you did; it only matters why you did it. You're not actually "using Fe" unless you did something because you believe in Fe's values purely for their own sake. Even if you did something that "looked Fe" on the surface, if you did it to appease a more important Te value, then Te is the real function at work. (e.g., "I should give an appearance of respecting other people's cultural values because that's the most effective way to get what I want" is Te, even though it involves doing something that appears Fe on the surface.)

When you say that EJs are often "good at both Te and Fe" you seem to be associating Te and Fe with particular tasks rather than underlying value systems. Correct me if I'm wrong, here, but your reasoning seems to be that if someone is good at logically organizing outer world tasks to get stuff done and also good at harmonizing with group-oriented values, he must be using both Te and Fe, but this is a mistake based on the misconception that functions are equated with singular actions.

They are not. Functions are value systems that make up the building blocks of one's worldview. If we want to understand Vito's functional makeup, we need to look for the ultimate root motivation for his behavior, in the most fundamental components of his value system--not simply label surface actions as "using" this or that function.

The mbti and Jung aren’t the same thing. The mbti is based on Jung, but it’s a revision and expansion of his definitions and theory of the functions. You can quote Jung’s text on psychological types, but you can’t offer proof of its validity. His typology was a brilliant first draft, no question, but he didn’t develop it nearly as much as some of his other theories; it was hardly his magnum opus.

Myers-Briggs, however, spent much of her life researching and developing the mbti, as did Keirsey. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s proven to be more accurate than Jung’s original blueprint. Most people, including myself, are lowest or near lowest in their type’s inferior function.

You’re forgetting, too, that some people are close in preferences. You seem to be arguing that, in this case, even if an ENTJ has a slight to moderate T preference, it still guarantees that Te is at the top of the order and Fe the bottom; it’s impossible for an EJs “values” to be fairly balanced in the two with one being a little more dominant. It’s all one and very little of the other. I don’t see this fitting all EJs or people of other types.

 

[simulatedworld]

The mbti and Jung are not the same thing. The mbti is based on Jung, but it’s a revision of his definitions and theory of the functions. And I don’t know about you, but in just about every function test I’ve ever taken, I score lowest in my type's inferior function.

Function tests are nonsensical because they depend on self-report. Anything you erroneously believe about yourself will come out on a function test as being true. I could design a test to determine if you have superpowers, and if you told it that you can fly and leap over tall buildings, it would confirm that you can do these things--but that doesn't make them true.

You’re also forgetting that these are unproven theories. You can quote what Jung said, fine, but there’s no proof that everyone fits that perfectly, never mind that we weren’t even typing these characters with Jung’s system.

I'm not forgetting anything. I'm working within the framework of Jung's theories because that's what typology was based on. There's nothing to "prove" or "disprove" because typology is just a bunch of arbitrary categorizations that can't be tested empirically. The only thing I'm arguing is interpretation.

You’re also forgetting that some people are close in preferences. You seem to be arguing that even if an ENTJ has a slight to moderate T preference, it means that Te is at the top of the order and Fe at the bottom. It’s impossible for someone’s “values” to be fairly balanced in the two. It’s all Te and little Fe or vica versa. Jung’s unproven theory nothwithstanding, I just don’t see that in all EJs I’ve known.

No, it means that Te is at the top of the order and Fi is at the bottom, and that Fe doesn't really come into play. If you're opposed to "unproven theories" then I don't know why on earth you're interested in typology in the first place. You say this as if MBTI somehow has more empirical evidence than Jung--but it doesn't.

If you're discussing functions using labels like Te or Si, you're already working in Jungian territory because MBTI doesn't even differentiate between the different forms of each process--it just condenses them into general preferences for E/I, N/S, F/T, and J/P. By even using the terms Fe vs. Fi, you've already moved out of MBTI's box and implied use of Jung's ideas--and now you want "proven theories"?

You're looking in the wrong place if you want an empirically verifiable or testable system. Typology is all up to interpretation.

 

[Benny]

Both Michael and Vito are INTJ's. Where you guys get E or even F ,I have know idea.
Sonny is ESTP
Fredo is ESFP
Tom is ISTJ

 

[evilrobot]

Function tests are nonsensical because they depend on self-report. Anything you erroneously believe about yourself will come out on a function test as being true. I could design a test to determine if you have superpowers, and if you told it that you can fly and leap over tall buildings, it would confirm that you can do these things--but that doesn't make them true.



I'm not forgetting anything. I'm working within the framework of Jung's theories because that's what typology was based on. There's nothing to "prove" or "disprove" because typology is just a bunch of arbitrary categorizations that can't be tested empirically. The only thing I'm arguing is interpretation.



No, it means that Te is at the top of the order and Fi is at the bottom, and that Fe doesn't really come into play. If you're opposed to "unproven theories" then I don't know why on earth you're interested in typology in the first place. You say this as if MBTI somehow has more empirical evidence than Jung--but it doesn't.

If you're discussing functions using labels like Te or Si, you're already working in Jungian territory because MBTI doesn't even differentiate between the different forms of each process--it just condenses them into general preferences for E/I, N/S, F/T, and J/P. By even using the terms Fe vs. Fi, you've already moved out of MBTI's box and implied use of Jung's ideas--and now you want "proven theories"?

You're looking in the wrong place if you want an empirically verifiable or testable system. Typology is all up to interpretation.

By your logic you don’t know your own type. Not that I disagree people often mistype themselves by relying on tests. But all you have to go by are tests plus your knowledge of the types, functions and preferences. It’s all based on self-report

If you're working within the framework of Jung’s typology, your framework is wrong for this thread, which was about the mbti types of these characters, not the Jungian types.

Didn’t say I was opposed to unproven theories or that these systems have no value. But you have to allow for margin of error. Jung’s typology and the mbti are approximations, not precise sciences. And the functions extracted from mbti types (Fi, Ti, Te, etc.) are based on Jung’s types, yes, but not exactly the same. True, it’s a Jungian interpretation of the mbti, but the theory of their usage order is different, just as socionics is different. In a way it’s like you're arguing that my mbti typings and interpretation are wrong based on socionics theory, which is related to the mbti, but a different system, as Jung’s original system is different than the mbti, including the Jungian interpretation of the mbti.

I wonder how many people agree with you? For example, do INTPs find Fi less influential than Fe (their inferior function)? Do INTJs find Si weaker or "fainter" than Se, their inferior function? You could argue that the inferior function has strong unconcious influence, but my point about Vito Corleone is that he had conscious use of Fe, the “family values” related to it, even though he's more Te overall (more head than heart).

 

[teslashock]

Both Michael and Vito are INTJ's. Where you guys get E or even F ,I have know idea.
Sonny is ESTP
Fredo is ESFP
Tom is ISTJ

Vito is an ENFJ, and here's why:

His primary value is family and keeping the family together as one cohesive, content, and productive unit. For Vito, family is more important than power, as a stable familial structure enhances one's ability to gain power. For NTJ power-mongers, it's less an issue of unit power and more an issue of individual power.

In the 2nd film, that focuses very much on Vito, he explicitly states that his family is the most important thing to him. He says this to his Italian friend while watching that Italian play in New York.

Additionally, Vito attempts to unite those around him in a common cause to reach a common social goal; he's a motivator. He does this when he unites the community against the other Don that's bullying people around.

Vito's primary way of gaining power over people is by instilling the belief in them that he's a compassionate, sympathetic, and understanding guy, and subtly manipulating them into returning the favor (you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours). An example of this occurs when Vito finds out that he's to be fired, and the other Don's minion is to take Vito's place. Vito does not react with contempt or disdain towards his boss; he displays an air of understanding and sympathy, and he expresses the sincere notion that he believes it to be for the greater good of everyone if Vito just backs down (of course he has ulterior motives regarding the Don, but that's beside the point). Vito's basis for building his reputation in the community rests upon maintaining trustworthy and reliable relationships by granting favors/kindness in exchange for favors/kindness in the future.

Additionally, Vito has a natural penchant for using subtle emotional manipulation to establish a level of authority/inferiority (a skill to which the standard NTJ is not privy). An example of this occurs when he some how causes the landlord to change his mind about the old woman's lease in the apartment (again, 2nd film). The old woman is going to be kicked out of her apartment and Vito agrees to speak to the landlord about the issue (and he does this out of a social obligation that he feels). That landlord walks into Vito's olive oil shop, and all it takes is one minute of discussion for the landlord to yield to Vito's wishes. Some how Vito made the landlord feel guilty for treating the lady discourteously, so the landlord changed his mind.

Anyway, all of the above just reeks of Fe/Ni. The fact that he kills people doesn't make him an NTJ.

 

[simulatedworld]

By your own logic you don’t know your own type. Not that I disagree people often mistype themselves by relying on tests. But all you have to go by are tests plus your knowledge of the types, functions and preferences. It’s all based on self-report

Well, nobody knows his own type (or anyone's type) for certain because the whole thing is subjective. I always tell people I think of it like musical genres, except genres of people--you can't empirically verify whether an artist is post-rock or indie rock, but there are still generally accepted standards. You can't empirically "prove" that Jay-Z isn't a jazz fusion artist, but if you say that he is it's generally understood that you're probably wrong.

If your working within the framework of Jung’s typology, your framework is wrong for this thread, which was about the mbti types of these characters, not the Jungian types.

That's interesting; I don't see anything in the OP signifying that you only wanted MBTI analysis. If you didn't want to discuss Jungian functions, I find it odd that you used them freely in your responses to other posts here. If you stick strictly to MBTI, Te, Ti, etc. are meaningless terms because MBTI only deals with E, I, N, S, F, T, P and J as separate and distinct concepts. There's no sub-classification of S, N, T or F.

Didn’t say I was opposed to unproven theories or that these systems have no value. But you have to allow for margin of error. Jung’s typology and the mbti are approximations, not precise sciences. And the functions that are extracted from mbti types (Fi, Ti, Te, etc.) are based on Jung’s types, yes, but not exactly the same. True, it’s a Jugian interpretation of the mbti, but the theory of the order of their usage is different, just as the socionics interpretation is different. In a way it’s like your trying to argue that my mbti typings and interpretation are wrong based on socionics theory, which is related to the mbti, but a different system, as Jung’s original system is different than the mbti, including the Jungian interpretation of the mbti.

You've got it backwards. The MBTI types were extrapolated from Jung's functions, not the other way around. MBTI doesn't actually discuss directional functions at all--it doesn't differentiate between Fe and Fi; both are just condensed into "F." Therefore, if you're discussing Fe, Fi, Te, etc., you are using Jungian terms.

I wonder how many people agree with you? For example, do INTPs always find Fi less influential than Fe (their inferior function). Do INTJs always find Si weaker than Se, their inferior function? If you can prove me wrong, I’m fine with that. I guess you could argue that the inferior function has strong unconcious influence, but my point about Vito Corleone is that he had conscious use of Fe, that he had “family values” related to it, even though he is clearly more Te overall (more head than heart).

Nobody can prove anybody wrong about the types of anyone, so I don't understand why you keep asking for that. Typology, since it is not testable or empirically verifiable, operates on inductive reasoning--the best you can do is make a "strong" argument that x person is y type; you cannot evaluate subjective analysis in terms of deductive reasoning. There is no such thing as a truly "correct" or "incorrect" typing, only "strong" or "weak" arguments for types (which are ultimately subjective anyway.)

Aside from that, though, I think you've missed my point about Fe vs. Te. Having strong family values doesn't necessarily indicate Fe use; having a conception of morality based on an external standard does.

So one could have strong family values based on Fe--if his idea of ethics is based on an external standard and that external standard says that family values are important.

Or one could have strong family values based on Fi, if his idea of ethics is personal and internal, and he feels it's important to support his family structure.

Or one could have strong family values based on Te, if his idea of logic comes from an external standard and he sees that keeping a family together is an objectively effective method of reaching whatever goals he has.

Or one could have strong family values based on Ti, if his idea of logic is personal and internal and he believes that it's logically consistent to support his family structure.

etc., etc...you're still defining functions according to displayed behavior, but functions don't do that. That's what MBTI's basic four-dichotomy sliding scale system is for. Observing and categorizing obvious surface behaviors--the what, not the why.

Functions are more difficult because they describe fundamental components of value systems--if we say someone uses Fe, all we're saying is that he bases his concept of ethics on some external standard. This may (and frequently does) result in "strong family values", but some Fe users do not have strong family values. The defining characteristic of Fe is that it motivates people to define morality according to an objective external standard--the why, not the what.

If you're not interested in discussing functional value systems/would prefer to discuss only MBTI, that's fine, but it does make it confusing when you use terms like Te and Fe in your analysis. MBTI doesn't encompass these terms at all.

 

[the state i am in]

yeah, you can't empirically prove that your representation is the true representation of something. you can make a claim or a proposition, but it's always representational. and getting a linguistic system and the world to stick together or cohere fully doesn't make sense, not as an account of the world as it is. it's compacted, encoded, shrunk, etc. intended to be a compressed approximation according to a specific information system.

with that said, the system makes no fucking sense if the representations don't work together in a logical way. and the whole cognitive function test approach doesn't do that at all, in my opinion. as a system it doesn't map on to anything, it doesn't have any internal logic, it just allows people to avoid understanding the subtleties that are necessary to see differences and other factors that are not well-accounted for under mbti-related perspective, while muddling the one layer of understanding/perspective that mbti DOES bring. and mbti is just another way of saying jungianism, for me. like marxism, regardless base, superstructure, commodity, they're all in play. it's an extension of one discourse, an attempt at testing it, exploring it, reading/interpreting it in different ways under different sets of premises/guidelines.

i think intj for vito and entj for michael make sense. or infj for vito. and michael is a different enneagram type than vito, who could easily be a 5. very deliberate, thoughtful, wants to make sure he knows what he's doing before he does it. michael is much brasher, aggressive, angry, and image-conscious. the goal is the goal is the goal. why doesn't matter. it never does.

 

[Killjoy]

With Michael, you have to take into consideration the effect Apollonia's death ultimately played in what he would become.

He's definitely an NTJ, even before Sicily. Obviously calculated, calm, even dispassionate - The way he handles himself at the hospital (even surprises himself), it's his decision to kill Sollozzo and McCluskey... Hell, even the way he handles himself with Apollonia's father. Still, he was nothing like what he became after Sicily.

When she was murdered, he seemed completely hollowed by it. Everything was business from that point.