Charisma & Fe

[Tennessee Jed]

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]

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."

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Sh strikes me as a little awkward and uncomfortable in press junket style settings. Can’t blame her

 

[yeghor]

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.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

This gent got it right back then.

Sensor privilege is real.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

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]

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.

 

[FemMecha]

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.

 

[FemMecha]

Jung on Se

Jung on Se
The Extraverted Sensation Type

No other human type can equal the extraverted sensation type in realism. His sense for objective facts is extraordinarily developed. His life is an accumulation of actual experiences of concrete objects, and the more pronounced his type, the less use does he make of his experience. In certain cases the events in his life hardly deserve the name "experience" at all. What he experiences serves at most as a guide to fresh sensations; anything new that comes within his range of interest is acquired by way of sensation and has to serve its ends. Since one is inclined to regard a highly developed reality-sense as a sign of rationality, such people will be esteemed as very rational. But in actual fact this is not the case, since they are just as much at the mercy of their sensations in the face of irrational, chance happenings as they are in the face of rational ones. This type—the majority appear to be men—naturally does not think he is at the "mercy" of sensation. He would ridicule this view as quite beside the point, because sensation for him is a concrete expression of life-it is simply real life lived to the full. His whole aim is concrete enjoyment, and his morality is oriented accordingly. Indeed, true enjoyment has its own special morality, its own moderation and lawfulness, its own unselfishness and willingness to make sacrifices. It by no means follows that he is just sensual or gross, for he may differentiate his sensation to the finest pitch of aesthetic purity without ever deviating from his principle of concrete sensation however abstract his sensations may be. Wulfen's Der Genussmensch: ein Cicerone im rücksichtslosen Lebensgenuss is the unvarnished confession of a type of this sort, and the book seems to me worth reading on that account alone.

On the lower levels, this type is the lover of tangible reality, with little inclination for reflection and no desire to dominate. To feel the object, to have sensations and if possible enjoy them—that is his constant aim. He is by no means unlovable; on the contrary, his lively capacity for enjoyment makes him very good company; he is usually a jolly fellow, and sometimes a refined aesthete. In the former case the great problems of life hang on a good or indifferent dinner; in the latter, it's all a question of good taste. Once an object has given him a sensation, nothing more remains to be said or done about it. It cannot be anything except concrete and real; conjectures that go beyond the concrete are admitted only on condition that they enhance sensation. The intensification does not necessarily have to be pleasurable, for this type need not be a common voluptuary; he is merely desirous of the strongest sensations, and these, by his very nature, he can receive only from outside. What comes from inside seems to him morbid and suspect. He always reduces his thoughts and feelings to objective causes, to influences emanating from objects, quite unperturbed by the most glaring violations of logic. Once he can get back to tangible reality in any form he can breathe again. In this respect he is surprisingly credulous. He will unhesitatingly connect a psychogenic symptom with a drop in the barometer, while on the other hand the existence of a psychic conflict seems to him morbid imagination. His love is unquestionably rooted in the physical attractions of its object. If normal, he is conspicuously well adjusted to reality. That is his ideal, and it even makes him considerate of others. As he has no ideals connected with ideas, he has no reason to act in any way contrary to the reality of things as they are. This manifests itself in all the externals of his life. He dresses well, as befits the occasion; he keeps a good table with plenty of drink for his friends, making them feel very grand, or at least giving them to understand that his refined taste entitles him to make a few demands of them. He may even convince them that certain sacrifices are decidedly worth while for the sake of style.

The more sensation predominates, however, so that the subject disappears behind the sensation, the less agreeable does this type become. He develops into a crude pleasure-seeker, or else degenerates into an unscrupulous, effete aesthete. Although the object has become quite indispensable to him, yet, as something existing in its own right, it is none the less devalued. It is ruthlessly exploited and squeezed dry, since now its sole use is to stimulate sensation. The bondage to the object is carried to the extreme limit. In consequence, the unconscious is forced out of its compensatory role into open opposition. Above all, the repressed intuitions begin to assert themselves in the form of projections. The wildest suspicions arise; if the object is a sexual one, jealous fantasies and anxiety states gain the upper hand. More acute cases develop every sort of phobia, and, in particular, compulsion symptoms. The pathological contents have a markedly unreal character, with a frequent moral or religious streak. A pettifogging captiousness follows, or a grotesquely punctilious morality combined with primitive, "magical" superstitions that fall back on abstruse rites. All these things have their source in the repressed inferior functions which have been driven into harsh opposition to the conscious attitude, and they appear in a guise that is all the more striking because they rest on the most absurd assumptions, in complete contrast to the conscious sense of reality. The whole structure of thought and feeling seems, in this second personality, to be twisted into a pathological parody: reason turns into hair-splitting pedantry, morality into dreary moralizing and blatant Pharisaism, religion into ridiculous superstition, and intuition, the noblest gift of man, into meddlesome officiousness, poking into every corner; instead of gazing into the far distance, it descends to the lowest level of human meanness.

The specifically compulsive character of the neurotic symptoms is the unconscious counterpart of the easy-going attitude of the pure sensation type, who, from the standpoint of rational judgment, accepts indiscriminately everything that happens. Although this does not by any means imply an absolute lawlessness and lack of restraint, it nevertheless deprives him of the essential restraining power of judgment. But rational judgment is a conscious coercion which the rational type appears to impose on himself of his own free will. This coercion overtakes the sensation type from the unconscious, in the form of compulsion. Moreover, the very existence of a judgment means that the rational type's relation to the object will never become an absolute tie, as it is in the case of the sensation type. When his attitude attains an abnormal degree of one-sidedness, therefore, he is in danger of being overpowered by the unconscious in the same measure as he is consciously in the grip of the object. If he should become neurotic, it is much harder to treat him by rational means because the functions which the analyst must turn to are in a relatively undifferentiated state, and little or no reliance can be placed on them. Special techniques for bringing emotional pressure to bear are often needed in order to make him at all conscious.

Jung on Fe

4. The Extraverted Feeling-Type

n so far as feeling is, incontestably, a more obvious peculiarity of feminine psychology than thinking, the most pronounced feeling-types are also to be found among women. When extraverted feeling possesses the priority we speak of an extraverted feeling-type. Examples of this type that I can call to mind are, almost without exception, women. She is a woman who follows the guiding-line of her feeling. As the result of education her feeling has become developed into an adjusted function, subject to conscious control. Except in extreme cases, feeling has a personal character, in spite of the fact that the subjective factor may be already, to a large extent, repressed. The personality appears to be adjusted in relation to objective conditions. Her feelings correspond with objective situations and general values. Nowhere is this more clearly revealed than in the so-called 'love-choice'; the 'suitable' man is loved, not another one; he is suitable not so much because he fully accords with the fundamental character of the woman -- as a rule she is quite uninformed about this -- but because [p. 449] he meticulously corresponds in standing, age, capacity, height, and family respectability with every reasonable requirement. Such a formulation might, of course, be easily rejected as ironical or depreciatory, were I not fully convinced that the love-feeling of this type of woman completely corresponds with her choice. It is genuine, and not merely intelligently manufactured. Such 'reasonable' marriages exist without number, and they are by no means the worst. Such women are good comrades to their husbands and excellent mothers, so long as husbands or children possess the conventional psychic constitution. One can feel 'correctly', however, only when feeling is disturbed by nothing else. But nothing disturbs feeling so much as thinking. It is at once intelligible, therefore, that this type should repress thinking as much as possible. This does not mean to say that such a woman does not think at all; on the contrary, she may even think a great deal and very ably, but her thinking is never sui generis; it is, in fact, an Epimethean appendage to her feeling. What she cannot feel, she cannot consciously think. 'But I can't think what I don't feel', such a type said to me once in indignant tones. As far as feeling permits, she can think very well, but every conclusion, however logical, that might lead to a disturbance of feeling is rejected from the outset. It is simply not thought. And thus everything that corresponds with objective valuations is good: these things are loved or treasured; the rest seems merely to exist in a world apart.

But a change comes over the picture when the importance of the object reaches a still higher level. As already explained above, such an assimilation of subject to object then occurs as almost completely to engulf the subject of feeling. Feeling loses its personal character -- it becomes feeling per se; it almost seems as though the [p. 450] personality were wholly dissolved in the feeling of the moment. Now, since in actual life situations constantly and successively alternate, in which the feeling-tones released are not only different but are actually mutually contrasting, the personality inevitably becomes dissipated in just so many different feelings. Apparently, he is this one moment, and something completely different the next -- apparently, I repeat, for in reality such a manifold personality is altogether impossible. The basis of the ego always remains identical with itself, and, therefore, appears definitely opposed to the changing states of feeling. Accordingly the observer senses the display of feeling not so much as a personal expression of the feeling-subject as an alteration of his ego, a mood, in other words. Corresponding with the degree of dissociation between the ego and the momentary state of feeling, signs of disunion with the self will become more or less evident, i.e. the original compensatory attitude of the unconscious becomes a manifest opposition. This reveals itself, in the first instance, in extravagant demonstrations of feeling, in loud and obtrusive feeling predicates, which leave one, however, somewhat incredulous. They ring hollow; they are not convincing. On the contrary, they at once give one an inkling of a resistance that is being overcompensated, and one begins to wonder whether such a feeling-judgment might not just as well be entirely different. In fact, in a very short time it actually is different. Only a very slight alteration in the situation is needed to provoke forthwith an entirely contrary estimation of the selfsame object. The result of such an experience is that the observer is unable to take either judgment at all seriously. He begins to reserve his own opinion. But since, with this type, it is a matter of the greatest moment to establish an intensive feeling rapport with his environment, redoubled efforts are now required [p. 451] to overcome this reserve. Thus, in the manner of the circulus vitiosus, the situation goes from bad to worse. The more the feeling relation with the object becomes overstressed, the nearer the unconscious opposition approaches the surface.

We have already seen that the extraverted feeling type, as a rule, represses his thinking, just because thinking is the function most liable to disturb feeling. Similarly, when thinking seeks to arrive at pure results of any kind, its first act is to exclude feeling, since nothing is calculated to harass and falsify thinking so much as feeling-values. Thinking, therefore, in so far as it is an independent function, is repressed in the extraverted feeling type. Its repression, as I observed before, is complete only in so far as its inexorable logic forces it to conclusions that are incompatible with feeling. It is suffered to exist as the servant of feeling, or more accurately its slave. Its backbone is broken; it may not operate on its own account, in accordance with its own laws, Now, since a logic exists producing inexorably right conclusions, this must happen somewhere, although beyond the bounds of consciousness, i.e. in the unconscious. Pre-eminently, therefore, the unconscious content of this type is a particular kind of thinking. It is an infantile, archaic, and negative thinking.

So long as conscious feeling preserves the personal character, or, in other words, so long as the personality does not become swallowed up by successive states of feeling, this unconscious thinking remains compensatory. But as soon as the personality is dissociated, becoming dispersed in mutually contradictory states of feeling, the identity of the ego is lost, and the subject becomes unconscious. But, because of the subject's lapse into the unconscious, it becomes associated with the unconscious thinking -- function, therewith assisting the unconscious [p. 452] thought to occasional consciousness. The stronger the conscious feeling relation, and therefore, the more 'depersonalized,' it becomes, the stronger grows the unconscious opposition. This reveals itself in the fact that unconscious ideas centre round just the most valued objects, which are thus pitilessly stripped of their value. That thinking which always thinks in the 'nothing but' style is in its right place here, since it destroys the ascendancy of the feeling that is chained to the object.

 

[yeghor]

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.

 

[Earl Grey]

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.