Famous Living NFs

[Alesia]

No I meant his name. I've never heard any of his songs to my knowledge. My music firewall is set on maximum, due to an unfortunate adolescence spent in dormitories with extremely thin walls, expensive stereos and vacuous top-of-the-charts playlists. Passive listening. I haven't listened to any FM radio for about 3 years now.

Oh, so I guess that means you can't click on the video sites I posted and have a look see. Crap! Well...he's just so NF an internationally famous, I want to be him. If only I had a voice like his.

[Carebear]

I think the fact that he often writes his heroes as NTs is misleading in typing him. He clearly looks up to NTs, but I don't think this is inconsistent with an NF male. I think most of us wish we had a bit more NT in us, and NTs seem to be the type the culture looks up to regardless of how personally irksome it can find them. Writing an NT thought also tends to make for better comedy, I think.

My biggest personal reservation with typing Pratchett is figuring out his J/P axis.

That's exactly what's been fooling me, I think. Thanks for opening my eyes, tripple-J. He promotes NT'ism and portrays NTs convincingly, but yes, with the human condition and values in general in focus. But what makes you doubt his (to me impressive) P-ness?

[Economica]

That's exactly what's been fooling me, I think. Thanks for opening my eyes, tripple-J. He promotes NT'ism and portrays NTs convincingly, but yes, with the human condition and values in general in focus. But what makes you doubt his (to me impressive) P-ness?

I second that question.

[JivinJeffJones]

.

[Economica]

I guess it's because his rl persona seems very J, although it's possible I just think that because he a) obviously gets a lot done b) dresses really snappily in his photos c) is a very early-morning person (silly I know) and d) really likes his Vimes detective stories. I realize none of these are particularly good reasons.

Okay, I'll keep the Terry Pratchett case file closed then. I'm still recovering from the anguish of having had to re-open the Johnny Depp one (and still hoping some male INFJs will come along and reclaim him (after all, I have the male INFP slot covered)).

[Alesia]

I say, most writing classes say, most compelling authors I know of say.

It's not interesting to be purely conceptual in all things. Experience, and description of it, in addition to the abstract, is far more compelling.

The INTX was not imitating the "SP style." That was his style.

I know what you are saying meshou. But, you are speaking of one INTX. And, yes, I agree that when you are writing a story, especially, that you must have concrete descriptions for writing to be good.

I was refering to what one writes about. Like Carl Rogers is a very typical NF who writes about psychology. As I said, the Self Help book section is filled with NFs writing. The vast majority of novelists and story writers are SP. This is according to stats that have been taken by CAPT. They are not anywhere on the internet, or I'd post a link. But I have a book of stats like this that I purchased through CAPT and anyone here can too. It has stats of all sorts of careers and stuff, and what percentage of types go into those careers and much, much more.

I could write that way, also. It would take a little effort on my part to make sure I include concrete information, but it would take effort. My suggestion and opinion is that the majority of NFs, if they write a book, will write about how to help people. Psychology, self-help books, that sort of thing. Of course, they can and do write other types of things. And when they get out of typical territory, they do great things. It's because they are unique in a different type territory and won't produce the same ole' same ole'. That is true of any type who operates out of their type.

The vast majority of novelists and other types of story writers are SP. And would it not make type sense to say that SPs would indeed include more sensing material and be attracted to that type of writing? And would it not make type sense to say the NFs would be more abstract/meaning writers and focus their writing on helping people?

To me it does make total sense. And the stats do back that up.

But, again, I know what you are saying about good writing. That is writing that is telling a story. What I am saying is that most NFs don't write about that. And good writing can be like Carl Rogers writing, which is great stuff about human psychology, and does not have to include sensing details.

And Johnny Depp was not even writing a story, but introductions. He could have chosen a different way to write. A different approach. A more analytcal approach, or a personal approach about how the book or whatever affected him. I know that if I wrote an introduction to a book it would be from a personal, abstract, how this book affects the world, and how it affects the reader, etc. It would be a totally different way of writing than what Johnny Depp wrote. But it would not, necessarily be "bad" writing. Just not the same kind of approach.

Edit: And remember, I'm not just refering to Johnny Depp's writing when I claim him to be ISFP. I am also referring to the types of movies he is attracted to. "Pirates of the Carribean", "Never, Never Land", "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". To me, these are very SP kinds of movies. I like them, but it's not comparable to say, "Dead Poets Society", which includes great depth and meaning. An INFX would be attracted to a different set of movies than I see Johnny Depp in. Also, given that the vast majority of actors are SP, my chances of being right are much greater.

[Carebear]

The vast majority of novelists and story writers are SP. This is according to stats that have been taken by CAPT. They are not anywhere on the internet, or I'd post a link. But I have a book of stats like this that I purchased through CAPT and anyone here can too. It has stats of all sorts of careers and stuff, and what percentage of types go into those careers and much, much more.

We're not talking about the majority of novelists and story writers, we're talking the "creme de la creme". Surely the NF ratio must be higher in this category?

I could write that way, also. It would take a little effort on my part to make sure I include concrete information, but it would take effort. My suggestion and opinion is that the majority of NFs, if they write a book, will write about how to help people. Psychology, self-help books, that sort of thing. Of course, they can and do write other types of things. And when they get out of typical territory, they do great things. It's because they are unique in a different type territory and won't produce the same ole' same ole'. That is true of any type who operates out of their type.

So there is reason to believe that the NFs who do write typical "sensing" books could actually excel beyond the SPs?

The vast majority of novelists and other types of story writers are SP. And would it not make type sense to say that SPs would indeed include more sensing material and be attracted to that type of writing? And would it not make type sense to say the NFs would be more abstract/meaning writers and focus their writing on helping people?

Stereotype sense perhaps. Most NFs I know care less about helping people and more about themselves, their own lives, having fun, making money, being creative, self realisation etc.

To me it does make total sense. And the stats do back that up.

But, again, I know what you are saying about good writing. That is writing that is telling a story. What I am saying is that most NFs don't write about that. And good writing can be like Carl Rogers writing, which is great stuff about human psychology, and does not have to include sensing details.

Even intuitives use their senses. Even intuitives get strong associations from smells, music, sights, sounds, feel, taste etc. It's easy to learn how to use "sensing" details in a story to drag the reader deeper into it.

And Johnny Depp was not even writing a story, but introductions. He could have chosen a different way to write. A different approach. A more analytcal approach, or a personal approach about how the book or whatever affected him. I know that if I wrote an introduction to a book it would be from a personal, abstract, how this book affects the world, and how it affects the reader, etc. It would be a totally different way of writing than what Johnny Depp wrote. But it would not, necessarily be "bad" writing. Just not the same kind of approach.

I could easily have chosen his kind of approach, just to steer away of some of the cliches.

Edit: And remember, I'm not just refering to Johnny Depp's writing when I claim him to be ISFP. I am also referring to the types of movies he is attracted to. "Pirates of the Carribean", "Never, Never Land", "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". To me, these are very SP kinds of movies. I like them, but it's not comparable to say, "Dead Poets Society", which includes great depth and meaning. An INFX would be attracted to a different set of movies than I see Johnny Depp in. Also, given that the vast majority of actors are SP, my chances of being right are much greater.

Dead Man, Gilbert Grape, Ed Wood, Cocolat...

[JivinJeffJones]

.

[Alesia]

Lol! Okay. Gee! You guys are really stuck on him being INFP. Huh. Well here are some quotes from Keirseys books that I've taken the time to type out. Consider, that INFPs and ISFPs have alot in common, so...

Here are descriptions from David Keirsey's book Please Understand Me II about ISFPs. He calles SPs, "Artisans", and ISFPs, "Composers"

"Although ISFPs excel win what are called the "fine arts", composing must not be thought of as only writing music, but as bringing into synthesis any aspect of the world to the senses. More than the other Artisans, Composers have a sure grasp of what fits and what doesn't fit in any and all kinds of artistic works, and so when an especially gifted painter, sculptor, choreographer, film director, song writer, playwright, poet, novelist, chef, decorator, or fashion designer shows up, he or she is likely an ISFP."

"While a few of these Artisans become world famous, Composers in general are very difficult to observe, making this type probably the least understood of all."

"If Composers find a medium of expression, some art form, then they will express their character quite eloquently via that medium. If not, it simply doesn't come out, and no one knows them, their reticence leaving their character all but invisible. Again, in those rare cases where remarkable skill is achieved, such as the virtuoso, ISFPs can become celebrities, but their nature is still far from visible."

The Artisan's main values are "excited, impulse, impact, stimulation, generosity, and virtuoso." Their main social role is that of playmate. Fun is the cherished word of an Artisan.

"Virtuoso performers in the fine arts, or on stage and screen, are apt to be Artisans, but we must not forget that virtuosity in performance can be achieved, or at least sought, by any of the SPs."

Now here is the Wiki for Johnny Depp. Johnny Depp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note that he started off wanting to be a rock star. Very SP. Take a look at his best buddies. Gothic, rock star, unusual kinds of characters, yes, but still SP. His freindship with Tim Burton has lead him to the unusual loner types of characters. ISFPs very often are quite reclusive, and indeed feel like loners. And Johnny Depp certainly maintains his distance. Typical ISFP.

So much of the SP character is described as performance oriented. I have rarely (if ever) seen the description of an NF so very much performance oriented. Keirsey describes them as Abstract Cooperators.

"Abstract words refer to things that cannot be observed but only imagined, while concrete words refer to things that can be observed and therefore need not be imagined. Idealists talk little of what they observe - "of shoes and ships and sealing wax, and cabbages and kings".

"Wanting to uncover meaning and significance in the world, and trying to understand what they believe is the real nature of things, Idealist thought and speech tends to be interpretive, which means they frequently comment on how one thing is really something else. Not tied to observable objects like the SPs and SJs, and not disciplined by the deductive logic of the NTs, NFs spontaneously transform one thing into another, ....the Idealist heroine in E.M. Forster's Howards End, tries passionately to connect "the seen to the unseen" in her life, a joining she imaginges as the

"building of the rainbow bridge that should connect the prose in us with the passion. Without it we are meaningless fragments, half monks, half beasts, unconnected arches that have never joined into a man. With it love is born, and alights on the highest curve, glowing against the grey, sober against the fire."

That is the NF style of writing. Abstract and full of meaning. Contrast this writing with that of Johnny Depp, full of descriptions of concrete things. I have read through Johnny Depp stuff for two hours now to see how or why you guys see him as NF, and am even more convinced that he is ISFP.

Peter Pan is the quintessential SP story. SPs want to be perpetual children. They want to play. Period. Fun! Fun! Fun! If you meet someone who uses that word a lot, then they are likely to be SP.

Just because Johnny Depp plays characters that are lonely and unique, and dark and moody, does not make him an INFP. ISFPs are also quite capable of being exactly the same way. Shunning the spotlight. Being independent. Marching to a different drum. Moody. Remember Fi is their dominant function. And again, INFPs and ISFPs have alot in common.

And that is all of the time I have to spend on this. I'm starting school full time tommorrow and will be swamped. Believe him to be whatever type you will. I believe him to be ISFP.

[Alesia]

This is to get the post started.

We're not talking about the majority of novelists and story writers, we're talking the "creme de la creme". Surely the NF ratio must be higher in this category?

No, actually. See my post above. Not novelists. SPs reign in that territory. Try fantasy, maybe.



So there is reason to believe that the NFs who do write typical "sensing" books could actually excel beyond the SPs?

Well, they certainly can and do write great stories. But I wouldn't place SPs and NFs in some kind of competition. They both have their strengths. And from those strengths great stories can arise.


Stereotype sense perhaps. Most NFs I know care less about helping people and more about themselves, their own lives, having fun, making money, being creative, self realisation etc.

Really? Most NFs I know (myself included) care a great deal about helping people.


Even intuitives use their senses. Even intuitives get strong associations from smells, music, sights, sounds, feel, taste etc. It's easy to learn how to use "sensing" details in a story to drag the reader deeper into it.

Of course. They just don't prefer that approach to life and thus, don't get as good at it as Sensors.
I could easily have chosen his kind of approach, just to steer away of some of the cliches.

Yep me too. But it would be a very conscious chose, and not my natural style.


Dead Man, Gilbert Grape, Ed Wood, Cocolat...

I don't agree with this at all. I think INFPs are very prone to using personal anecdotes to illustrate a point, especially when those anecdotes relate to the person whose book/film they are introducing. I really have no idea what NF writing according to you looks like. I think INFP writing tends to use symbols a lot, and anecdotes which are symbolic of something deeper. Good symbols are never abstract.


Well, I just posted my idea of good NF writing. Using personal anecdotes yes. But more abstract language.

Okay, I don't do this often. Honestly I don't. But I think it's warranted here. And I'm not angry. WTF???? Never never land an SP movie??? Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?? Have you seen them? Never never land is the story of JM Barrie, who wrote what is (in my mind) the most unquestionably INFP piece of literature in existence: Peter Pan. The whole movie is about how he basically is Peter Pan. And now you're saying it's an SP movie? Where on earth do you get that from? And I don't think any movie derived from a Roald Dahl story could ever be considered SP. They are way too disturbing.

Okay, I answered this one above. And yes, I've seen most of his movies. And for the record, I love them. And I think he is a fabulous actor.



Okay, now I know you're just playing with me. Are you implying that Dead Poets Society was a good movie, with greater depth and meaning than Never Never Land? It was maudlin. I could see the "twist" coming about 30 mins into the movie. It was all the same old rehashed coming-of-age story, crudely delivered. And I'm a fan of Robin Williams.

Lol! Okay. I loved it. An INFP character "the shy teenage guy", got to be the hero of sorts at the end. Standing on his desk and saying "Captain, my captain". I was like, yeay! An excellent portrayal of INFP daring and ingenuity when the chips are down. And all of that great poetry! Yum!
And what about Edward Scissorhands - another very INFP movie? In fact, I can't think of any movies Johnny Depp has been in which would comfortably fit into what I understand is the SP mould. True, he did do 21 Jump Street, but by his own admission he found that a soul-crushing endeavour.

Yeah, I loved Edward Scissorhands. But it would appeal, and did in fact appeal to whole lot of people. Why? Becuase, it's not just INFP, it's about anyone who has ever felt rejected by society and alone. And that includes a lot of people of all kinds of types.