• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Charisma & Fe

Tennessee Jed

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
577
MBTI Type
INFP
He's vulgar and profane. Try watching the entire video. Don't just jump to conclusions based on only a first impression. You're just projecting your own out-of-control Ne. :)
 

yeghor

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
4,276
The point is that she is lacking charisma because she seems like maybe she is making negative assumptions in ambiguous situations, but we aren't entirely sure that's what she's doing, but let's dislike her because we are going to assume the negative in her ambiguous situation.

If Brie is uncharismatic for doing that then people who assume negatively on her are also lacking charisma. Same thing, right?

One problem is she, as an NF type, was miscast as an action superhero, which is more suited to SF or ST types. So most of her co-stars were probably non-intuitive. This may have caused some discommunication and rubbed them the wrong way during the movie production and there may be some pent-up frustration that we are not aware of.

The other things is while Fe is more of a symbolism for compassion, warmth and social grace; a high sensing function is a symbolism for good looks, savviness and animal charm.

In the interview, she seems to be hypervigilant and on the defensive, and fails to make fun of and humble herself. They are taking jabs at her as playfighting yet she seems to take the jabs as real attacks and fails to deflect them by humoring herself.

Maybe it would've been much better if she just, to humble herself, had said "I am not much of an action hero type in real life but I tried my best to do my workouts and my stunts to catch up to my costars" or something like that to acknowledge it to them and ease the frustration.

The thing is human society is sensor-oriented therefore intuitives stand out as misfits and weirdos, cause they do not act normally like a sensor would do. If we were living an intuitive-oriented society or this interview took place in a predominantly intuitive niche community, Chriss Pratt would stand out as the weirdo and maybe shunned by his co-actors and feel awkward.

So the gist of it is "when in Rome, do like the Romans do."
 

yeghor

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
4,276
This gent got it right back then.

Why I am no longer going to complain about anti-S bias

My contention is that the two-variable power hierarchy in society looks like this: SJ > SP > NJ > NP.

SJs have the most power because:
When most people say "skills", they mean "SJ skills". When most people say "intelligence", they mean "strong Si and Je" (even if they don't use those terms), "factual knowledge", and "strong work ethic". Other skills don't count. SJs and everything about them are considered "normal"; by definition, then, everyone else is "other". In a more literal sense, SJs are 50% of the population (though estimates vary), and they probably hold more than 50% of the positions of power. The schooling and working worlds are designed for SJs to succeed, because they are held together by SJs.

SPs have second most power because:
We are a relatively prevalent temperament at 30%. There are enough SPs that some skills associated with strong Se are seen under the intelligence umbrella. Enough SPs that we are still seen as actual people.

NJ > NP in the hierarchy because NJ has top-two Je, which is also an SJ skill. The world seems far more stacked against Ns. I'd guess many feel devalued as people when their talents are invisible to or rejected by others. (This is just a guess. Please correct me.)

Now I think I understand why some Ns on this forum have an anti-S bias. IRL, Ss are unintentionally oppressing Ns most of the time. Some Ns find their sanctuary on an MBTI forum with favourable numbers (N > SP > SJ) and don't like it when we (S types) invade it to complain in the face of pro-N biased comments, or say we don't feel welcome on this forum, etc. Because a lot of Ns don't feel welcome in the world altogether, they are the victims of anti-N bias each and every day, etc. (I'm just guessing. Again, please correct me. The last thing I want to do is replace your words with mine.)

In comparison, I think I have no right to complain. I have the entire real world (mostly) in my favour, it would not kill me to let the Ns have this forum. I am sorry for being ignorant of this until just now.

All of this is open to correction, discussion, etc. and feel free to tell me I am just wrong. I apologize for any incoherence, I haven't slept in a while.
 

Doctor Cringelord

Retired from typology
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
20,074
Craig Ferguson is insufferably irritating.

now I feel bad for Larsen. I’d be an uptight bitch too if I had to be around Hollywood people
 

Tennessee Jed

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
577
MBTI Type
INFP
Craig Ferguson is insufferably irritating.

now I feel bad for Larsen. I’d be an uptight bitch too if I had to be around Hollywood people
I'm actually a big fan of Craig Ferguson's show. It's off the air now, but I still occasionally watch clips on YouTube for a quick laugh.

I like Se-Doms, particularly ESFPs. I hung around with the ESFP/ESTP party crowd for a while in the military, and everything was a constant party with them. Eventually it would go too far and we would all end up in trouble or in jail or whatever. But it was fun as hell while it lasted. And at the same time they were often super-specialists in their respective (sensor-oriented) fields, so they were the go-to people to get things done.

And my older ESTP sister is one of my favorite people in the world, despite the fact that she made my life hell when we were kids. :)

I like Se-Doms for all the reasons that the OP mentioned: Their ability to break the ice with strangers, to reach out and relate to people practically out of the blue, to turn any event into a party, etc. It really is a pretty useful skill, something that introverts like me can study and even emulate. I expect most iNtuitives are going to disagree with me. But I like Craig Ferguson precisely because he has that over-the-top Se-Dom quality that I've learned to admire.

As for Larson: I don't know her personality type, but she's a "Hollywood person" herself. She plays the game as well as they do, and better than most. She's been in the entertainment business for a long time and appears to project different personas as needed (judging from the few clips of her that I've seen), so I believe that she's adept at playing Hollywood's games. And probably enjoys giving as good as she gets.

When people are as famous as Larson, there's a reason: She's an expert at marketing herself and "playing the game," and she enjoys playing it.
 
Last edited:

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
13,861
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I didn't mean for this thread to be about Brie Larson. I didn't even know who she was when I posted the video. She has a right to be whoever she is - even if that means being a little negative or cantankerous. That's not against the law.

Se is a perceiving function. It isn't about how you act in the world, but how you take in information. It does not define socialization. It means that your perception of the world is based in the literal, concrete, in-the-moment existence. It provides a data set that makes people skilled at improvisatory actions in which one interacts with reality like a racecar driver, a firefighter, a surgeon, a jazz performer, a rock climber, etc. Whether someone is using F or T based judging/action functions will impact the manner in which the internal data set is re-presented to the world. It is the most objective form of data collection of all the perceiving functions. If it is combined with Fe, then it will provide a literal sense of one's surroundings, which may indirectly impact charisma, but it is inconsistent with Jungian theory to say it is any foundation or source of social charisma.
 
Last edited:

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
13,861
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Jung on Se


Jung on Fe
 

yeghor

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
4,276
I didn't mean for this thread to be about Brie Larson. I didn't even know who she was when I posted the video. She has a right to be whoever she is - even if that means being a little negative or cantankerous. That's not against the law.

Se is a perceiving function. It isn't about how you act in the world, but how you take in information. It does not define socialization. It means that your perception of the world is based in the literal, concrete, in-the-moment existence. It provides a data set that makes people skilled at improvisatory actions in which one interacts with reality like a racecar driver, a firefighter, a surgeon, a jazz performer, a rock climber, etc. Whether someone is using F or T based judging/action functions will impact the manner in which the internal data set is re-presented to the world. Se is not subjective. It is the most objective form of data collection of all the perceiving functions. If it is combined with Fe, then it will provide a literal sense of one's surroundings, which may indirectly impact charisma, but it is inconsistent with Jungian theory to say it is any foundation or source of social charisma.
All external functions are capable of reading their respective data from the environment as well as of being used as distinct means of expression. Se is a symbolism for how capable you are at using your body and expressing your body language, as well as reading others body language.

That's why ESTPs are good salespersons and sometimes conpersons. That would also mean a high Se function would help with good acting skills such as conveying the required emotion thru mimics and expressions at will.
 

Arcturus

resting at grace
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
4,794
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
712
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
It could be useful to have a thread about behaviors that create charisma and positive social exchange. I thought this video was helpful. I tend to read negative intent into ambiguous situations.

Tbh ime it depends on how you do it. There are endless stories of assholes in 'missing stair'-esque stories that have people sticking around them, or even defending and looking up to them, or even outright idolising them. I do think charisma goes much beyond being generally likable and isn't (necessarily) tied to morality, but sheer appeal and how good you are at swaying people to considering or listening to your appeal regardless of how valid your points are- worst examples include conspiracy theorists, say. Turns sane people mad. It's obviously not about the logic but the sheer appeal- the charisma.

For example, the video also stresses on the way the charisma is presented to be in a widely communicable form. In the first point, he mentions that the sarcasm needs a 'tell'. Perhaps- yes, for the wider circle of people. But there are people who would find that brave, quirky, charming, who knows. However, I do consider a part of charisma being that you can read your audience, so instead of criticising the way she tried to be 'witty', I would personally have instead criticised her lack of ability to read her audience as a sign of her lack of charisma, rather than the specific way she had chosen to be charismatic.

My opinion applies to each and every other point in the video - "Do not be flat", "Don't jump on every opportunity [...]" while being 50/50 agreeing on the narrator on the "You should not try to win each moment" since being an insufferable person who keeps having to be right seems to be universally disliked, indeed. Nobody likes that under any circumstances. The rest- depends on your audience and delivery.

In other words, I think that there are many ways people can appeal to and influence others, and that this video shows only a facet of it; the typical 'good' kind of charisma, the 'good' kind of behavious you would want out of charismatic people. But the reality is that no matter how much people say that, many remain swayed by not facts or morals but the sheer charisma or whoever they are seeing. That 'charisma' is only something bright and smiling and good- I dislike that notion because it creates the false equivalence of 'if this person is charismatic, they must be trusted/a good person' and the very fact someone is well-liked can be taken being good enough to trust them and their person, their words.

I overall dislike the video because it portrays only a narrow type of charisma and I tend to dislike that. From personal experience (from very, very personal experience) you don't have to be this chameleonic body-language mastermind to be charismatic- I am one of those people. My face, eyebrows, everything to my toes could be an actual statue (people have noted my lack of expression desipte my animated voice to be downright creepy) and while I do otherwise have Italian-hands-syndrome, I am generally regarded as charismatic and capable of swaying not just one person, but a group, if I apply myself (to the point the bulk majority of it is unconscious). I do think that charisma can be learned and pigeonholing charisma to a cookie-cutter stereotype of this smiling person with lots of body language and the perfect jokes is reductionistic and harms people's chances of learning the type of charisma that would come most naturally to them, and by extension, actually work.

That being said, I do think that Fe individuals would have perhaps an easier time of formulating that due to their natural tendency to focus on such matters (Feeling in the Extraverted realm), however, I do think that being able to look up information doesn't necessarily translate into the ability to understand and incorporate it to one's self. There are -Ps who are much more charismatic and Fe individuals who are overbearing or ... self-admittedly plain. Te I think is also another function that has a strong chance of being charismatic (with the right enneagram and instincts. I wouldn't say that a Te + sp/sx 549s cannot be charismatic, but it'd be less surprising than a Te + 738 so/sx being so). Think EXTJ orators motivating their people, say. As such, I cannot say I would know how to caterogise the functions in order of 'most to least charistmatic' or if Fe even is particularly more charismatic than the rest, or if it is 'the most charismatic function', but those are my two cents.


I'm not sure if I have Fe or not, but I can see that the outward focus has a lot to do with creating outcomes and not just reading accurately. Being positive even when it little bit distorts reality creates that positive reality, so I think that could be one aspect of Fe, but I'm not implying it's all of it. I think Fe is good at reading others accurately, but the expressed behaviors and word choice can be outcome oriented over defining. Maybe Fe is a bit like approach the subjective realm more like a verb than a noun? Feel free to share whatever thoughts.

I do agree however that a lot of Fe has to do with creating outcomes (what with it being a Je function after all), be it passively or actively. Sometimes it comes up to me as 'do you trip up on the current details, or do you take it and perhaps even butcher it in the process but create something better later on, that otherwise wouldn't have existed?' - a simple example are parents doing little white lies/hiding things from children because they're not old enough. I am not a Fe user myself and I am sure that each individual Fe user has different ideas of where the line is/should be drawn, but those are my impressions looking at them from the outside.

-----

Not sure if this is consistent with the kind of discussion you wanted in this thread considering a lot of responses focus on Brie Larson (I didn't know it was her. Hell, I don't even know who she is), but there you have it.
 
Top