INDEX
ABOUT
FAQ
GLOSSARY
MBTI TYPINGS
MBTI RELATIONS
DISCORD
PHOTOGRAPHY
GENERAL
DIFFERENCES
TYPING
FUNCTIONS
TABLES
LISTS
WORKS
VARIOUS
NAMES
MEMES
MORE
Anonymous said: Typing idea: David Chalmers
Hey, thanks for the suggestion :) Chalmers is a clear example of an ENFP (Ne-Fe-Ti-Si) that’s interested in “intellectual” topics (at least from an academic perspective). The typing could have been very difficult, partly because I didn’t know anything about him until now, but he’s not some obscure figure from centuries ago, so it turned out to be fairly easy. In fact, sometimes having no idea is really helpful, haha. Perhaps you anticipated that, somehow, and you knew this was essentially a softball :)
If we take a look at the letters first, it’s easy to see how Chalmers is E>I, N>S, F>T and P>J.
As it happens quite often, when he was young he didn’t feel like an extravert, and even though he played several team sports (already a slight sign of E>I), he says he was a “geek/nerd”. But he obviously ended up finding where his actual standpoint is: “People who knew me back then are usually surprised that somehow I’ve turned into a socially functional guy”, which I’d say is a bit of an understatement. He is clearly extensive>selective, not only in a professional sense (“my interests have gotten broader and broader”), but also externally, being a member of many groups, boards, committees, panels, etc. What’s evident is that his conscious focus, abilities and interests are totally in line with what’s present in the moment. He even admits that he has been “truly co-opted by the system” (so not an outsider at all, quite the contrary).
You can see EN (and Ne1) in how enterprising he is, how he’s always looking for a “challenge”, something different, something “fresh”, etc. He repeats this same idea in lots of different ways, even with phrases like “after ten years or so, it felt almost too comfortable” (this could come straight from Jung’s description of the extraverted intuitive). He changes jobs and place of residence very often, knows where/when opportunities lie or might arise (for example for funding businesses), etc. His various references to “patterns” are probably about gTe3→Ti3, and his “being lucky” goes well with Ne1 in general.
You can see EF (and Fe2) in his numerous contacts and memberships, the social aspect of his ideas, and many other friend[ly]-related things in his life, where decisions and results reflect people>task, for example when he went to a concert the same day an important website was launched, or the time where he sent an email invitation to an impromptu Halloween party and 50 people showed up.
That capacity for improvisation adds to P>J, together with his resistance to the idea of following conventional programs, and his openness to what change might bring, of course (that’s more ENFP’s optimism).
You can see a main (internal) sanguine temperament in his enthusiastic approach, NF in his communicative style (= external phlegmatic), EP in how he was often trying to “prove himself”, NP in how he likes to rearrange and discover new global perspectives on things, and FP in his informative attitude.
Ok. Now a few notes about the functions.
For Ne1 and Fe2 we have several points already. The way his personal circles and interactions follow his love for novelty is a manifestation of Fe being conditioned by Ne. This is just general among ENFPs, of course. They are usually very friendly and popular people, and some have real talent forming and navigating links, and moving [between] groups. Ne1-Fe2 is also behind Chalmers’ statements about always trying to improve things in shared settings.
His episodes of synaesthesia (“songs had colors for me”) were probably a manifestation of Si4: sensory perceptions all mixed together. His particular interest in things like “information technology”, “artificial intelligence”, “neural networks”, “extended mind”, “simulated worlds”, “virtual reality”, and the way he talks about “upload my brain into a computer”, a “sense of unreality” and “living in an alternate dimension” are all manifestations of Ti combined with Ne-Si, and very common in ENFPs, with their gSe4. (One of the best examples here is The Matrix, of course).
And finally what he calls “philosophy” is actually just Ti: concepts, abstractions, theories, lots of specific terms, etc. That’s the first internal function that many ENFPs find and identify as something “psychological” (their consciousness works with N+F, the most vague/indefinite pairing), so for many of them that Ti3 thinking (which on top of everything else includes the idea of “identity”) feels like their main mental characteristic, which explains why lots of ENFPs say they are “introverts”. Many of Chalmers’ ideas are a reflection of the experimental nature of X3 and how it’s actually conditioned by another thing (X4), in this case Si4.
The way he contrasts philosophy with science and “empirical” matters is probably a manifestation of Ti versus Te. I think one of the inflexion points in his career was precisely the realization that Te is a ghost function for him (gTe3) while Ti is proper (Ti3). You can see that when he talks about some “a priori philosophy” (Ti) behind “whatever science" (Te) people bring in.
Other things he says are basically a literal transcription of how ENFP’s functions interact. For instance he likes what could be a good definition of Fe2↔Ti3: “socially relevant philosophy” or “publicly accessible philosophy”. He even realizes that “the influence typically runs both ways”, and talks about concepts like “social identity”. If you think about it, his work (and that of similar people) constitutes an obvious foundation for lots of things related to politics. He’s all about “applying philosophy to social domains”.
Anonymous said: Hi, have you heard of Ludwig Wittgenstein? I was wondering about his type and considered Ti1, perhaps ISTJ, with what he felt was the problem with language and the variable internal images it evokes within each person. I appreciate your patience with the volume of questions you are receiving, maybe having a FAQ section could help hehe.
Thanks :) You might be right about the FAQ, the index is getting too big for that (^_^;)
I’ve seen that name around, yes, but I didn’t know anything about him until now. I’ve been reading and he seems a good example of what you said: Ti1 (ITJ).
First there’s the general introversion thing. He’s described as writing “independently of the colorations or influences that shape people’s minds in the special character of an age, language, or culture”. And he was “able to operate on that universal level in an important and original way”. (Obvious related post: post #56).
Then of course lots of things in Jung’s description of introverted thinking apply perfectly to Wittgenstein. Sometimes what you find about him is almost word by word: “It was difficult for him to get along well with his co-workers”. There is some sporadic emotionality, the complexity of his work, being misunderstood, unpopular but “brilliant" and also a very good friend for those in his inner circle, not successful as a teacher, etc.
I think he was S>N, yes. He was a sort of stoic inspector in the war (with directive abilities), and his approach seems more about correction than anything else, global but more “static” than moving or guiding (which would point to NJ). What you mention about picturing things could be similar to Plato’s ideas, right? (another ISTJ: Ti1>Si2). Also, apart from a general technical inclination fitting ST, the way he started with mechanical engineering, and the way he contrasts that (mostly extraverted) career with philosophy seems to be about a process of getting away from his Ghost: ESTJ (Te-Se-Ni-Fi). In fact, I’ve seen an ESTJ put the difference exactly in opposite terms (“research > philosophy”).
There’s definitely a clear contrast between Wittgenstein and someone with a totally different type who nevertheless could be comparable, like David Chalmers (ENFP = ISTJ’s Contrary).
Anonymous said: Hey! What type do you think Bob Ross was? Could he be FeSe?
Hi! :) I didn’t know anything about him. There’s not much information, but I’ve seen a pair of videos and read a few things, and I think he might be ESFP (Se-Fe-Ti-Ni). When he was in the military he had to be harsh, telling people how things should be, and that fits an angry ESFP being carried away by a certain compulsive drive, which was encouraged by the very position he had, of course.
The way he talks, the sensory skill he has, the dedication, the amount of [unseen] work that’s there in what appears a simple task, how he wants and tries to make it all practical, how he takes care of animals, the way he does and mentions things related to generosity, etc. That’s all very ESFP.
A comparable ESFJ would be much more formalizing and/or capricious about the subject matter, the technique and the result. It wouldn’t be just about direct and simple natural sensations, you would see or sense something around those, conditioning them, and/or some talk about their “meaning”, what they “represent”, etc. Also, I don’t think an ESFJ would choose to appear like that, with jeans and so on, like some kind of “manual worker”. (You might want to check post #59 and this image).
I think Ross is popular because he’s just a “normal person” doing and letting others enjoy something that feels good, away from judgments and complications.
Anonymous said: Can you help me, Daniel Day-Lewis functions?
I’d love to help you, I’ve been trying to type him for quite some time, so your question is the perfect excuse for actually reaching some kind of conclusion :) But remember that it’s better to use the letters for typing. That’s what you need to do first, and you have to do it right.
My first impression was ENTP but, after reading more about him, I think he is ESTP (Se-Te-Fi-Ni). (What follows might seem to be organized in sections, but it’s actually all mixed up).
In this case P>J is easy to see: he’s all about exploring and improvising, not planning. It’s in the way he talks about everything, for example about taking a lot of time to focus on just one thing (emergent>methodical), about not actually having “a career” (open-ended>planful), about his dislike for rehearsing, etc. You have quotes like this: “There’s always a sense of having failed to some extent in the exploration, of knowing that there are many, many other factors that might have been explored. Yet at the same time, I always feel it’s time to move on, regardless of any dissatisfaction.” To me, that speaks not only about P>J, but also about S>N (and even E>I). I don’t think an ENP would even notice that kind of failure or dissatisfaction.
S>N
All his work and hobbies have a clear physical foundation: laboring jobs, woodworker, hunter, cobbler, butcher, driving, etc. He is confident and skillful in all that: “Whenever we reach what we think are the boundaries of our endurance, you know ten minutes later you’re thinking: ‘I could have done that’, like in any athletic pursuit, ‘I could have gone further than that, I could have jumped higher’.” Getting to the point of adversely affecting his health matches Se1 more than Ne1 or Si1 (he probably interprets it as an “agnostic” version of what I explained in post #91.3). Ne1 might neglect certain things related to health and so on (or just be weird about them), but that’s a different behavior, Day-Lewis does all this from a clearly conscious standpoint.
He’s all about sensations and experiences, he wants things to be compelling and convincing, and when he talks about “imagining” he doesn’t mean anything distorted, symbolic or fantastical, but strictly realistic, of course (he probably means “making” or “building”, even if it’s just temporarily). He wants to control presences, states, conditions, etc, to stay in character and make it all more truthful. That’s why he needs “a particular environment. I need to find the right kind of silence or light or noise. Whatever is necessary, and it is always different.”
I’m not even talking about T>F because I think it’s clear that he does everything from a manifest task-first perspective.
E>I
And finally to distinguish between the STPs (apart from the previous Se>Si points), I think he is choleric>melancholic, bold>pragmatic, more sculptor (ESP) than scientist (ITP), and more about operation than conception. What he is quite clearly is external sanguine = SP.
Some could say he is selective>expansive, but that’s only if you make a cartoonish version of him where he’s only an actor, and ignore everything else he does in life. To me, he’s actually a good example of what being psychologically expansive means. In this context, someone selective would probably do more similar movies (or just more movies), repeating almost the same character in many of them, etc. (Yes, I’m thinking about people like Harrison Ford or Clint Eastwood, both ISTP).
Daniel describes himself as a “lifelong study of evasion”, which is a very EP thing (the whole “escaping” theme in general). I don’t see the kind of wit that ISTPs often display, and I’d say quotes like this are signs of E (fast) > I (slow), and maybe also a bit P>J, yes: “I like things to be swift, because the energy you have is concentrated and can be fleeting. The great machinery of film can work against that.” There’s also this one, which I think fits better with Se than Si: “Life comes first. What I see in the characters, I first try to see in life.”
So there you have it: Se-Ni and Te-Fi. As you can see, the functions alone are not that informative (INFJs have the same ones, for example). Even if we stick to just two letters, compare that with ES + ET + EP + ST + SP + TP. Now that’s a lot of interesting stuff.
Anonymous said: Is Bertrand Russell an INTP
The attempt behind this suggestion looks like another case of mistyping with the false eiei/ieie order. A lot of people mistype ISTJs (Ti-Si-Ne-Fe) as “INTPs” because the former is an introverted and thinking type that actually has Ti-Fe and Ne-Si (INTPs are Ni-Ti-Fe-Se).
I think Russell was Ti1, that is: ITJ, probably ISTJ like his friend Wittgenstein. First and foremost, he seems preoccupied mainly with topics related to the Ti-Fe dimension. Then you have his “detachment”, and the fact that he’s all about “bewilderingly complex theories”, with his work being described as “extraordinarily difficult to understand”. Also, he was often defined with words similar to “critic”, or even “nuisance”, which I think tends to be a sign of ITJ>ETJ.
As a reflection of J>P, he ends up saying that schools don’t pay enough attention to instruction and discipline, in order to acquire knowledge: “freedom is not a panacea”, “freedom should be restrained”, etc. For S>N I see a greater desire for belonging (SJ) than achievement (NT), you just have to look at all the organizations that he founded or was a member of, at the background aims of his actions and works, etc. And with all those changes in time he’s clearly more about hindsight than foresight. You can also check post #69 and post #108.
Just like other ISTJs, Russell was all about conceptual correction (he first became absorbed in mathematics, of course, wanting “a set of logically rigorous foundations”). The Skeptic denomination appears for instance in the doubts that led him to abandon religion, and in his writings against the conclusions of the Warren Report regarding John F. Kennedy being killed by Oswald. This, together with his love for mystery novels, also matches what I’ve found in other ISTJs.
The introverted journey from within to the external world (the main points being in this case Ti1→Fe4) can be seen quite clearly in his two main “phases”, with his intellectual work being followed by the social/political: “Russell was involved, often passionately, in numerous social and political controversies of his time”. The passionate bit fits what I wrote here about Fe4. Some say his political writings were “often naive and simplistic”, which would also go well with having Fe as X4.
Anonymous said: Hi, is Anakin Skywalker ESFP?
Some things seem to fit. For example his “fear of loss”, and being “overprotective and prone to jealousy”. But there are two big problems with ESFP.
1. The first one is that the Force for Lucas (like many versions and interpretations of “magic/energy”, especially in fantasy/sci-fi settings) is essentially derived from the SiNe function pair, so an ESFP (Se-Fe-Ti-Ni) would be quite incapable to use it, and I think it’s clear that for the most important being regarding the Force (Anakin is basically the “One", right?), we need someone with SiNe (that is: an EN or IS). This is also one of the reasons why I think Han Solo is ESTP instead of ISTP, and why I’m not entirely convinced of Leia as ESTJ, even though that’s her best fit (ENTJ just doesn’t feel right).
2. Even if we forget that requirement, we still have the problem of temperament. ESFP is supposed to be happy, or at least funny, even if it’s just from time to time. But there’s no sanguine component in Anakin, at all. He’s clearly choleric, and maybe a bit melancholic or phlegmatic, but that’s it. He’s obviously a driven and tragic character, no ESFP.
I think E>I is quite clear. Anakin is all about what’s happening in the moment, how things are unfolding, etc. Not detached or introspective, he reacts to everything and wants to be involved in everything. In fact, “involved” is almost an euphemism here :P
So we have ESTJ and both ENJs. If he was SJ I think he would be more willing to accept and follow orders and rules. He doesn’t really want correction, and even though he’s good with mechanical things, Anakin is too isolated and reckless for ESTJ. Also, I think it’s implied that his vehicle is foresight, not hindsight. Which ENJ, then? Well, he’s described as “cocky”, “confident and bold”, with “a lack of subtlety”, and his actions as “ruthless”. All that seems more T than F. In fact, he doesn’t seem cooperative at all, he’s not hopeful about people and their possibilities, and there’s never an indication that (somehow) he could “find his tribe”. He actually seems consumed by his own evaluation of things. The way he interprets his dreams/visions could be a manifestation of Si3→Ne2. I think ENTJ (Te-Ne-Si-Fi) works well for him.
Anakin’s desire was “to obtain enough power to save his loved ones”, and he seems to go by the “end justifies the means” way of thinking, which is more J than P, very EJ, and very ENTJ. Saving others from death would definitely count as a big practical achievement, right? In fact, there’s another ENTJ character obsessed with stopping death in The Fountain, for example.
Anonymous said: Can I ask why was C. S. Lewis is a Sensor and not Intuitive? He was so concerned about the meaning of his stories and hidden messages.
Hopefully this question has been (partly) answered in this post. Any Ti1 writer that’s busy with something like religion can conceptualize and try to explain his understanding of things through symbolic stories, he doesn’t need to be intuitive. Lewis knows the Bible, and a lot of literature, so he can replace characters and elements, put them in a secondary world, add or substract angles and subplots, etc.
Many people really seem to have a sort of compulsion to mistype anyone that thinks deeply about things and/or creates (art, literature, etc) as “intuitive”. And there’s a big problem out there with introversion being mistaken for “intuition”. All this shows that most people don’t know what the dichotomies mean, and that they can’t recognize the different styles of thinking and creativity.
Intuition is not synomymous with imagination. Just because someone uses his/her imagination, doesn’t mean [s]he’s an N. And of course, imagination is not a function.
Now think about this: what does the word “imagination” contain? Image, something that has a form or shape. Well, that’s what sensation is about. What if you don’t see exactly what’s out there but a slightly different version of it (Si), and you use that vision to develop an imaginary or alternative world where things have fantastical properties, and you can describe what happens to the creatures that live there? Then you might be a Lewis, or a Tolkien (ISFJ: Fi-Si-Ne-Te). Isn’t that a form of imagination? (A very common one, in fact).
Take a look at the typings page. People like Wernher Von Braun, Elon Musk and James Cameron are ESTJs (Te-Se-Ni-Fi). Lots of fiction writers are ISTJ (Ti-Si-Ne-Fe): they are the historical architects, precisely the type that’s more about mind-building and organization (of complex ideas, systems, worlds). Not only Lewis but people like George R. R. Martin and Christopher Nolan are also ISTJs. If they were religious (religiosity being another thing that’s not a function, by the way), they could include other kinds of messages in their work, right?
Ok, back to Lewis. You have to think about his outlook, the needs that he expresses with his interests and works, and the nature of his creativity (this one to determine SiNe or NiSe, like I just did). Is he confident about his own ability to navigate, provoke and/or benefit from change? Or is he more resigned, managing and working on some intellectual configuration that makes it all right for him, so that he doesn’t have to worry about variations and alternatives? Does he try to innovate or overcome challenges, or is he more like a curator, someone that knows a lot of things and tries to place them the way they should be?
Lewis uses hindsight almost exclusively. He is much more reliable than unknown, and he is totally about conceptual correction.
Anonymous said: Was Socrates INTP or ENTP? Or something else?
Socrates was not an intuitive. Jung seems to say that he was SP (=S1), when he writes that Socrates “repressed the intuitive function as far as possible”. There’s very little information about the real Socrates. Many things that are supposedly known about him might actually be additions or changes made by Plato and others. But I have been reading, and I’m thinking ESTP (Se-Te-Fi-Ni).
He says he doesn’t have any theories, he’s only good at checking others’ and seeing if they are worthy or not. This might be a manifestation of Te2→gTi2. Socrates derives facts from simple reality (Se1→Te2) and then uses that to see if there’s any validity in the reasonings or conceptualizations that he finds (gTi2). His famous “method” is similar to other characteristic ESTP behaviors, because they all try to actively make others reveal themselves, see “what they are made of” in a very general sense, and then denounce or mock them (very often the mocking is in itself the method).
Xenophon talks about Socrates’ “arrogance”, and says he was “an expert in the art of pimping” or “self-presentation”. This fits ESTP really well: many of them are the kind of [unscrupulous] person that can turn everything in their favor, increasing their fame or notoriety (both are the same for them). Then you have his “sarcastic wit” and all those things he does “jestingly”: ESTP is The Joker. And there’s also everything about his physical qualities: “remarkable physical vigour”, “endurance and prowess in military campaigns”, being “strong and daring”, a “mason and sculptor”, etc.
His “warning voice” would be a manifestation of unconscious intuition (with flashes of Ni4→gNe4). The same with those “fantastic notions about the soul and the unseen world” that he shared with others.
Anonymous said: Why Alex Jones ESTP and not ENFJ?
Alex is not a feeling person. He gets emotional but you can see he’s mainly joking with that, trying to shock and entertain people, while his conscious judgment stays centered on practical matters (selling you stuff). He’s not really idealistic, he just wants to uncover things, see how others truly are, what they are up to, etc, and benefit from the ensuing disruption. He might get carried away with that, of course, and exaggerate or distort things to try and stir/frighten people because, well, just like many others, he wants to keep the audience interested. Regarding temperament you can also see the problem: Alex is not externally phlegmatic, at all. He’s obviously sanguine.
He’s not in it for political or social reasons, I think that’s obvious. Also, he’s (more or less) genuinely afraid of possible future events, which doesn’t fit too well with conscious Ne (EN). He wants to be informed about lots of things, and consults (supposed) sources of prediction, because his vehicle is interaction (SP), not foresight (NJ). In a similar position an ENFJ would probably be pushing for or running a political party or some kind of social organization. But Alex is not cooperative. Don’t you get the impression that he’s just playing with you all the time?
Think about these things, for example: mercenary>charmer, motivator>supervisor, improviser>guide, and spontaneous>persuasive.
Anonymous said: Witnessing the character reviews is amazing. Are there a few INTP philosophers you know?
Anonymous said: No way, Nietzsche is INTJ. He is Ti dominant exactly. Ti-Ni[Se] uses schizophrenia imagining, Ni-Ti[Fe] not using schizophrenia, just using word’s from the unknown. So… Isn’t it?
Anonymous said: Is Nietzsche’s Zarathustra ESFP?
1. Thanks :)
The best example of an INTP (Ni-Ti-Fe-Se) philosopher is Friedrich Nietzsche. Right now I don’t know of any other. I’ve been looking and most of them are SiNe and/or Judgers.
2. At first I thought INTJ too, but he’s absolutely an INTP (Ni-Ti-Fe-Se). The problem is that Jung does a really weird thing: he mentions Nietzsche right at the beginning of the introverted thinking type (Ti1), when he really shouldn’t, because in previous sections of the book he writes very clearly that Nietzsche is an introverted intuitive (Ni1). I mean, the mention is actually great as another proof of the attitude of the auxiliary being the same as the dominant’s, but it’s also confusing about Nietzsche himself. The best quote is this one: “In both cases, however, intuition was subordinated to intellect, but with Nietzsche it ranked above it”. Take a look at the rest of things that Jung says about him. (I don’t know what you mean by “schizophrenia imagining” but, I’ll repeat, I just don’t refer to or work with that sort of terms).
More manifestations that indicate P>J:
- The nature of his period of waywardness, and the way they describe him as someone with “no plans at all”. I think it’s quite clear that Nietzsche is more Alien than Investor.
- His “condition of permanent doubt”, and how he recommends “the condition of uncertainty”. Judgers are not that fond of doubts.
- Also, if you add his phrase “the object of philosophical inquiry is truth” to the way his writings are considered “impure” because “they mingle reason and sensibility, logic and rhetoric”, etc, you get almost literally what I wrote for INTPs: veracity > purity.
3. I think Zarathustra, like the rest of characters in the parable, is the kind of literary figure that doesn’t correspond to any psychological type. I mentioned this possibility in post #21. This is what people say: “Zarathustra and the other characters with whom he interacts are living and acting symbols” (of things like the past, a transition, etc).
Anonymous said: This is Charles Lindbergh. The plane landed here by mistake. Nice place. Why am I ISTP? How is Amelia Earhart ENTP?*
Anonymous said: Hi! I’ve been reading your posts for a while and it has been very insightful. Thank you for this. I had been typed ISFP by some self claimed expert, but I had a lot of trouble identifying with this type, since I’m very insecure about sensory aspects of life. But then by reading your posts I thought about the dichotomies individually and concluded I was ENFJ, but then I looked at the typings you provided and realized I am actually ENFP. Now my question is: what are ISTP women like?
Thanks and thanks :)
I was wrong about Amelia: she’s actually a good example of ISTP woman. I hadn’t read enough about her, and what I read made it seem like all the promotional stuff was her idea, when she’s actually not like that. In fact, there are several instances when you realize how she didn’t want to do/have “anything that attracted too much attention”, for example. This is a problem, the way some writers try to present a certain individual as something [s]he isn’t, because there’s a prejudice against not being “entrepreneurial” enough, or because they want to fabricate an unreal “idol”, with contradictory characteristics, and then sell it or use it to promote something else.
Anyway, they are both ISTP because they are obviously about the task at hand, not the people involved (T>F). This includes (even as a joke) how Amelia prefers to carry the equivalent of her husband’s weight in fuel instead of him, together with her saying “it was really a relief to be alone”. Their work is always about technical and physical matters, stuff they can manipulate and verify by themselves, etc. (S>N). They are introverts mostly because they are intensive (and Si1-repetitive, never really taking notice of accidents, for example), not expansive. Even though Lindbergh has lots of varied interests, that’s due to his intelligence and curiosity, not his actual reach or command, which doesn’t really grow: what he does stays close to him, at his own scale. They are also loners instead of joiners, motivators or directors.
AMELIA EARHART
More appropriate references for Amelia: her “mischievous wit”, how “her decisions were precipitate, made without consultation and, once made, acted upon”, and how she plants a flower garden and then designs a chicken trap to protect it. She “became a volunteer nurse in a hospital for veterans”, knowing that help was needed, because she wanted to be useful (IS), while in her spare time she studied mechanics, of course. She’s resourceful and reuses things, saying “I hate to spend money for things I never will need or want”. She’s described as a “tomboy” with “boyish straight-forwardness”, and she’s also sort of a contortionist who takes naps of indefinite length while curled up. All that, napping included, is very ISTP in general.
I only know a few ISTP women (IT-women in general are not very common), but I’d recommend reading about Earhart to get to know them a little better.
CHARLES LINDBERGH
For Lindbergh there’s for example the fact that he lived according to “the need to maintain balance”, which is a very Si1 thing (in Amelia’s case there’s that moment when she saw a horse, which was tied with “its check rein tied much too high”, and she went to lower it). After his famous flight, Lindbergh “knew that submitting himself to the idolatry of the public could strip him of his very identity”. I think that means he was aware of his own Fe3→Ti2, and “the only preventive he could see was to maintain his privacy” points to I>E, of course.
Instead of directing (EJ), he’s actually being directed on most ocassions. The idea of his visit to Germany, for example, came from Truman Smith, and this is actually a pattern in his life. Lindbergh is described as “A minister without portfolio, his sole motivation was public service. He had no thirst for power or attention, and he paid for all his flights out of his own pocket”. He is asked to do things, and he tries to help. And there’s also the fact that others (reporters, governments, etc) use him, inventing lies about him, making him a scapegoat, etc, while he adheres to “his longtime policy of offering no comment”. I think an ET in that almost lifelong situation would act quite differently.
His main standpoint is that he wants “to gain first-hand experience” of things. That’s how you have to look at his job as test pilot, a very dangerous job (a sort of guinea-pig role, very ISP), and a perfect manifestation of someone who consults his garden to make his books: he uses his analysis of hands-on performance to determine or improve technical standards. His primary contribution is not so much establishing or supervising but checking how everything goes/works. It all could be considered part of ISTP’s focus on conceptual application.
There’s always a large perceptive and personal side in what he does. Things like his flights, “always in the name of professional aviation but just as much for his personal edification”, really seem SP>SJ (external sanguine > external melancholic). And a later example: in 1944 he wants to go to the Pacific, a move that, officially, aims to get ideas for the next generation of fighters, but personally it’s because he wants to “see action at the front”. There, after being considered “too old”, his skills and resistance are revealed. He flies more than average, and also uses less fuel in his missions (which matches Amelia’s money-saving), so they ask him to show others how to do it.
Being considered a “defeatist” is also a perspective that can be applied to many ISTPs: their Ne4 makes them the opposite of enthusiastic optimists, especially regarding [human] competitions. It’s not that they won’t fight (quite the contrary, right?), it’s just that you won’t hear any reference to some “winning hope” for their own side, or get any motivational message from them (they are the opposite of NFs), because their confidence is only on what they can touch and operate themselves. People like Lindbergh and Earhart (and STs in general) don’t rely on “believing” when there’s something that needs to be done. They want to be prepared.
Anonymous said: can vladimir nabokov be isfj? “signs and symbols” seems like te4 fantasy. what you said about synesthesia for david chalmers made me wonder enfp too
That was a great suggestion. I think you’re right, he really seems ISFJ (Fi-Si-Ne-Te). You have for example his work as curator of lepidoptera, his focus on external perfection (SJ) instead of spontaneity or some other aspect, how he was described as a “dignified gentleman” with an “earthiness” in his writing, or how he talks about a kind of SiNe secondary world (like Tolkien) with things like this: “a radiant and mobile medium that was none other than the pure element of time. One shared it (just as excited bathers share shining seawater) with creatures that were not oneself but that were joined to one by time’s common flow, an environment quite different from the spatial world, which not only man but apes and butterflies can perceive”.
Certain elements of the story you mention could be seen as a particular description of Te4, yes, with those external objects referring and talking about the person in some kind of code.
Oh, and be careful because synesthesia is a perceiving effect, not a thinking or conceptual one. As usual with most internal terms, many people don’t know what it really is, and only say they have it because a name “reminds them of” a color, or something like that. Synesthesia is a different thing. It’s not a link or mental association. It happens at the perception level, more or less where some people are color-blind, for example, and it refers to “the subjective sensation of a sense other than the one being stimulated”.
HAYAO MIYAZAKI: ISFP (Si-Fi-Te-Ne)
With Miyazaki and similar authors, people watch the movies and think “imagination”, “magic”, “fairy tales”, “adventure”, and they classify all that as “N”, not realizing that being imaginative is not exclusive to intuitives (check post #178, and also the answer about C. S. Lewis, for example).
My first impression was that of some kind of melancholic, probably an ISJ: “It’s very important to fulfill the promises that you have made to people”, and “I have negativity, despair or hopelessness. In fact, a lot of hopelessness and pessimism”. Then I got more confused because his father was an aeronautical engineer (probably an ESTJ), and he incorporates many “machine-like” ideas in his work. So I kept the misleading “melancholic” point and added his role as director/supervisor on top of all that (“EJ”), interpreting his being “publicity-shy” as just “not-EF”. But that didn’t fit, and after checking things several times, I’ve found that Miyazaki is actually an ISFP (Si-Fi-Te-Ne), a sort of Japanese George Lucas.
His “hopelessness” is essentially Ne4, and he’s not looking for the correction or perfection of the melancholic, he’s rather sanguine and very much emergent and open-ended (P>J), never writing a script beforehand, just drawing by default. Most of the time he’s almost exclusively immersed in all kinds of sensation-related tasks (scenic construction, graphic structure, character designs, mechanical designs, layouts, storyboards), which really indicates SP more than anything. He often underlines it: “I’m not a storyteller. I draw pictures". And then: “the story develops when I start drawing storyboards”. I think you can see this in the way his narratives twist and turn rather chaotically. He also encourages originality in young artists, not any kind of “reverence to authority”. And even though he’s sometimes described as “severe”, I think that’s just an example of the “harsh, repelling manner” that Jung mentions for IPs in general. His continuous focus on children fits IP, too.
Miyazaki uses real models and people as visual source, yes, but he actually filters all that through, and relies more on, his own characteristic “fertile imagination” (Si). Things aren’t realistic in his movies, at all. There are lots of impossible distortions and transformations, anthropomorphic creatures, imagined worlds, spirits, weird science, magical effects, etc. He likes what’s often called “animism”: “the material world has life and consciousness, and not only animals but objects. In fact, nothing is really inanimate”. This all fits Si1. Very often we just can’t tell if we are watching reality or a dream/fantasy. It’s basically all the same in Miyazaki’s work.
He also has a “problematic relation to his own culture”, which fits gFe2 quite well. Fi2 could be an explanation for his famously “ambiguous” characters, and his “consistent theme of not taking sides” (also P>J): “you can condemn actions, but you don’t see others as enemies” (Fi2-Te3). Changes in appearance are often accompanied by changes in behavior or internal impression, which I think goes well with Si1>Fi2. Te as X3 could be part of his fascination with planes and other machines, how he resembles some kind of researcher in his interest on and rendition of life forms and buildings, and the strict rules he seems to have for certain things. Other common ISFP topics in Miyazaki’s films are “creative curiosity” and “the joys of tinkering”.
He mentions his “abhorrence of military violence and totalitarian control”, which fits ISFP as the Peacemaker, just like his common “solution combining reparation and forgiveness”. As an example, while working on Gulliver’s Space Travels, he proposed a change in the script, so that the protagonists reveal the humans trapped inside the robots, saving “their humanity”, which reminds me of Darth Vader in Return Of The Jedi. He sometimes includes “a warrior woman who appears menacing but is not an antagonist”, perhaps a reference to his Contrary: ENTJ.
OSCAR WILDE: ESFP (Se-Fe-Ti-Ni)
He always wanted to be with people, where everybody was. He dominated conversations and gatherings and was extremely popular (EF). They talk about his enthusiasm (sanguine/·) and generosity (a trait that’s also represented in The Happy Prince), and describe him as “funny” and “entertaining”, a “court jester to the English” with “heightened social consciousness” (Fe>Te), and “a verbal musician of the first order”, which sounds very much like something that’d come from EFP’s Ti3.
The main difficulty here is J/P. Sometimes he seems ESFJ, especially with his extravagant lifestyle and his focus on “uncompromised expression of self”, but that could be the influence of his particular sexuality, I don’t know. I don’t see any EFJ representative inclination in him.
There are several things that look ESFP>ESFJ, mostly an apparent disregard for communities and shared values of any kind, and his insistence on pure beauty and aesthetics (very Se1). He criticized society and fashion itself, writing against a certain kind of public altruism that’s very much related to Fe1, and liking America for its lack of hypocrisy. If you think about it, you can even consider the similarities between his arrest and public condemnation and those in Socrates’ case (ESTP). For more ESFP points (including Se1’s wish of preserving things in perfect condition) you can take a look at the post I wrote about his famous novel The Picture Of Dorian Gray, with a protagonist that “follows a path of hedonism, self-indulgence, and the objectification of others”.
Anonymous said: Can you explain Immanuel Kant, please?
Jung says he’s Ti1: “the normal introverted thinking type could be represented by Kant”, so we know he is an ITJ. This other quote, together with the impression that his general biography gives, reminds me of the resigned trait that’s very often in ISJs: “Kant himself, an extremely pure introverted type, is as remote from either optimism or pessimism as any of the great empiricists”. The word “pure” could also be related to ISTJ’s pure melancholic temperament, right? (his link to melancholy appears in more places). It really seems to refer to someone who’s all about something, all the time (that’s what pure temperaments are).
I don’t see many intuitive things in him, it’s all very static (especially in the S>N sense): “Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge”. They say his life was moved only by duty (SJ>NJ), and he really looks like an ISTJ (Ti-Si-Ne-Fe) in many other aspects, for example with his love for the history of mankind, nations, nature, mathematics and logic, his clockwork routine, his scrupulousness, and even his admiration of Rousseau (an ENFP, ISTJ’s Contrary type).
His “total indifference” to the visual arts, music, and beauty in general doesn’t point to INTJ (especially with their Se3). It reminds me more of people like H. P. Lovecraft, for example (also ISTJ).
Anonymous said: Can you help me to understand the type of Soren Kierkegaard?
I think he was an INFP (Ni-Fi-Te-Se). The public and correct Fe-things didn’t make him happy, that’s one of the most obvious aspects of his psychology. He was “known for his disdain of politics” and the media, and his individualism.
He writes from the “priority of fundamentals over externals” (I>E) and “content over form” (N>S). He’s also described as “compassionate” and “philosopher of the heart“ (F>T). I think this quote is very Ni1: he “went his own way, almost self-contained, never spoke of his home, and neither brought classmates home with him nor visited them in their homes”. Some call him the “poet of the religious”, which fits Ni1>Fi2.
Kierkegaard was all about internal discovery: “he wrote as both a philosopher and a spiritual seeker”. He wished “to be one of those ‘fortunate temperaments’ who were decisively inclined in a particular direction. But clearly he was anything but such a temperament”. You can also look at his “exquisite ideals”, and how he’s described as “full of reflection” (pure phlegmatic). His break-up with Regine is related to all that, and it’s also indicative of P>J, or at least not-very-SJ. It’s quite clear that the division he makes between “ethical” and “aesthetic” life refers to N+F vs S+T. His problem was that he thought he had to choose one, that is: he probably identified too much with his conscious side.
They say he was a disciple of Socrates (ESTP: Se-Te-Fi-Ni, INFP’s Mirror), and it’s funny how he seems to recognize that he’s ESTJ’s Contrary type: he talks about “the many benefactors of the age who know how to make life more and more easy, some with railways, other with omnibuses and steamships…”, and then, thanks to the contrast provided by his self-knowledge, concludes half-jokingly that his duty is “to make something more difficult”. Perhaps you can see the connection of that idea with the way Michel Gondry (also INFP) complicates things in his videos and films.
Anonymous said: Hi, I thought Carl Jung typed Freud as INFP but you typed him as ENTJ, why is that?
Anonymous said: Hi. What do you think of Freud?
I was wrong about Freud’s type, he’s actually an INFJ (Fi-Ni-Se-Te). The main point in Jung’s statements about him is the difference between Ti and Te: “Freud’s view is essentially extraverted”. There are several instances in which Jung (INTJ: Ti-Ni-Se-Fe) pairs Freud with extraversion (or against introversion), giving the impression that he’s talking about his type. It’s mostly quotes like this that can be misleading (especially if you find them when he’s describing Te1s): “When Freud says that the unconscious “can do nothing but wish” this is very largely true of the unconscious of the extravert”. He also mentions him elsewhere together with the very Te idea of formula, for example.
But there’s a letter that he wrote to Ernst Hanhart, which I hadn’t read before, that includes this: “Freud, when one got to know him better, was distinguished by a markedly differentiated feeling function. His “sense of values” showed itself in his love of precious stones, jade, malachite, etc. He also had considerable intuition. Yet the superficial picture he presented to the world was that of an extraverted thinker and empiricist who derived his philosophy of life from the man in the street, which is supposed to be modern“.
He’s saying that Freud was actually someone with Fi1-Ni2-Se3-Te4 (INFJ) who identified more with (and/or wanted to be seen more like) his unconscious side (a sort of ESTJ: Te-Se-Ni-Fi). That’s why I initially thought that he was all about some kind of external achievement: I knew he was an NJ who overvalued Te, and I combined the two things. I’ve never been interested in him, and I took it for granted that his breach with Jung was a question of Ghost contrast (E/I), so I didn’t look further, until now.
Everything fits with INFJ for Freud. Some appropriate quotes: ”it was not in Freud’s nature to economize“, ”he spent his twenty-fourth birthday in prison, having gone AWOL from his military training“, ”he did retain an irrational conviction about the occult significance of numbers and a more than half-hearted belief in telepathy“ (not just that), and ”he had destroyed his notes, letters, and manuscripts of the last 14 years, presciently adding that he had no desire to make it easy for his future biographers“. The third one reminds me of Dark City. The last one is a very INFJ thing to do, and it matches both foresight (also in the planning of his career) and what I wrote here about Te4.
Collecting antiquities fits a judger with unconscious sensation (NJ), just like his “lack of surgical skill”. He was described as a “boulevardier”, a sophisticated person who frequents fashionable places, and the way he managed his affairs and those around him reached points that could be seen quite easily as a kind of cult, especially if you add his daydreaming about people like Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon, which probably sprang from INFJ’s (potential) belief in reincarnation and/or fate. The very idea of psychoanalysis, in which someone that you can’t see listens and tries to guide you through your most private secrets, matches quite well the concept of an unknown (hidden) charmer.
Maybe Freud mainly saw dreams as “wish-fulfillment” because gSi3 for him was only a ghostly auxiliary function, an insubstantial way of trying to serve the dominant that he interpreted as a false attempt at helping his own wishes, fears, responsibilities, etc (Fi1).
What I think of him? Well, apart from the fact that I don’t like anything about him or how he sees people, I guess in a sense it’s similar to Myers’ case (also INFJ), because they are obviously important innovators, they concretize and bring new and interesting things to the public and so on, but there’s always that really unfortunate slant within, the way they distort things to fit their own fixations and preferences, which ends up turning something that could be helpful into basically the opposite.
I think Freud is the kind of person that creates problems where there aren’t any, for example interpreting and defining things we all experience as if they were “traumas” or some kind of “shameful” thing. That’s one of the oldest tricks in the book, of course, because that way literally everybody is a potential client.
Anonymous said: How do you justify Michael pierce and harry murrell being S types? I can get them being J types. Harry Murrell at least describes Ni similar to internal absence. Like a vacuum, or seeing gaps between information and seeing the big picture in your mind therefore feeling comfortable with vagueries. He has it right. Yknow? He’s also describing it for an audience, trying to make the descriptions more scientific/get definitions, he has to try and zoom in to actually get any details. They’re something he has trouble with. Michael pierce also seems more comfortable with abstractions, than every day details but I can see him possibly being a sensing type. But someone who sits down and rambles about symbolism is probably going to have a chance to be intuitive right? Why S over N
I think you missed this post. That’s basically your answer (I wrote more here).
Harry Murrell, Michael Pierce, Renaud Contini, Simon Whistler… they are all the same kind of people, a very obvious psychological type: ISTJ (Ti-Si-Ne-Fe). Those are not INFJs (Fi-Ni-Se-Te). INFJs are people like Alan Moore, Andy Warhol or Sigmund Freud. Both types are primary melancholics, and the false eiei/ieie order makes people believe that INFJs have Ti, which is actually ISTJ’s dominant function. All those “INFJ” complex philosophy thinkers are ISTJ (Plato, Wittgenstein, etc).
The confusion comes from and is all about their Ti1. All those “abstractions” are actually Ti-elements, and both their “vague” quality and their contrast with “everyday details” is caused by introversion, not intuition. Ti is (apart from conceptual and intricate) a very cunning function. It conceptualizes everything so it can talk like (and apparently “transform” (=present) itself into) what the other functions are supposed to “sound”. But the concept is not the thing. Ni is not “gaps of information”, that’s just a manifestation of Ti/introversion trying to encompass everything from the outside (or the “other side”). Also, just because someone can describe a function correctly, doesn’t mean it’s his/her dominant, or even proper to him/her.
Harry (like ISTJ in general) isn’t comfortable with vagueries, he says the whole matter gets more complicated as he continues thinking about typology: that’s the classic complex Ti-web of concepts in his mind, because what he’s actually trying to do is just that: fill the gaps. He looks for details but has trouble getting them because he’s an STJ-type trying to pin down the most evasive and amorphous things.
He thinks the functions are “tools”. They aren’t, but that’s a common perspective for ISs: they try to find things to use, learn ways to be useful, etc (if ESTJs are about external machines, ISTJs are about the mind-machine, with its buttons and levers). He just doesn’t know what the true functions are. Phrases like “Ni conceptualisation”, “an Ne perception of reality allows for greater spatial awareness” and “recognising the tangible as an object in the first place (Te)” only confirm that. He’s very likely mistyping everybody.
Also, he’s obviously struggling against the supposed “stereotypes” because, well, he’s mistyped. From the point of view of a mistyped person all stereotypes are wrong, obviously. Mistyped people tend to force their language (sometimes even their appearance) to match their supposed type (it’s all about interpreting a character). So you have to look past the words. It’s not the words, but the way they talk about things, the background intentions, likes/dislikes, confidence, etc. It’s not what the person says, but why [s]he says it. And of course, you can’t limit your search to what they show/cover online. A person is much more than the [carefully] delineated (sometimes even forced) areas that [s]he chooses to deal with in a hobby or at work.
You can see the people in question are not INJ if you look at all that and you have an adequate range of people in mind. They are not so confident regarding unknown possibilities or creativity for its own sake, they prefer to focus on facts/details, activities and correction/application of knowledge (“common sense”). They want to be prepared, and they also like conservation, tradition and belonging more than N types. They are Logical and Technical, and definitely more Artisans than Artists, more Curators than Innovators, more Historical than Existential, more about Experience than Challenge or Inspiration, Hindsight > Foresight, etc.
ISTJs can garner a considerable audience talking about MBTI and other intellectual topics because they share ENFP’s functions, and lots of outspoken typology fans are ENFPs, even though they are very often mistyped as well (like Frank James, Erik Thor and Leon Tsao, for example).
Many of the problems with ISTJs being mistaken for “intuitives” originated with David Keirsey, an ISTJ who took the first MBTI result they gave him, “INTP”, and ran with it without looking back. From his own mistype comes the idea that “complex systems” are an NT-thing, when in reality they are just a Ti thing.
NERO: ESFP (Se-Fe-Ti-Ni)
Nero was all about entertainment and sensory extravagance, and he fits really well ESFP’s generous/careless traits: “there was no limit to his gift-giving or consumption”. He definitely got wilder over time, treating people like mere objects. There are several things that sound F>T and EF, for example his performer attitude (singer, actor, etc), not caring about expansion or war, being “nervous and anxious in competitions”, and the way he went about things through people/reputation/etc rather than tasks/ideas/etc.
TIM BUCKLEY: ISFP (Si-Fi-Te-Ne)
He really seems to be all about Si1, “completely immersed in the music 24 hours a day. He ate, drank and breathed music. I would not be at all surprised to learn that Tim worked on chord progressions and melody lines in his dreams, he was that committed to the art form”. He said: “If you use it right, it’s all music”. There’s also his confidence regarding resources and so on: “You could take all the money away from me, and I could make it anyway. I did it before, and I can do it again”. One night someone threw a flower on the stage, and he “chew the petals and spit them out” 😄
Always described as “very friendly”, “sweet” and “vulnerable”, a “troubadour” who seemed “homeless” (=vagabond, very ISFP image in general, not because they don’t have a home but because their home can be anywhere). The way he would “embroider the truth”, telling “little lies” about himself (but not in the sense of self-promoter, in fact they mention his “incredible naivety”), and how “If someone dared him to do something, he’d do it” (especially drinking), are things I’ve seen in other ISFPs. His “deep-seated fear of success” could be Ne4 combined with gFe2, and saying “I can see where I’m heading, and it will probably be further and further from what people expected of me” another possible manifestation (and awareness) of that Fi2/gFe2.
Sometimes he would “freely improvise at exhausting length” (SP), but there’s also his “self-indulgent repetitiveness” (which doesn’t seem very ENP, for example). For I>E you have the way he often “seemed oblivious to the audience”, or “The context was an empty sham to him”. Things like this go very well with ISP’s sense of balance: “If I write too much music, it loses, as happened on Sefronia. Y'know, it gets stale”. I think this might be him basically saying he’s Si1. He reminds me a lot of Elliott Smith (perfect pitch and drug-use included), and another ISFP that I know in person. I’ve seen comparisons with Bob Dylan, too (not just because of the hair).
I think one difference between ISP’s and ENP’s innovation is that ENP’s strength is mostly in the presentation, in making things interesting, in adapting the idea to the current situation, etc, while ISPs often find rejection when they release something different, they are just bad at being relevant by themselves, and their work is mostly internal, unseen in a sense, so many times it ends up being somewhat shocking for others. You’d need to do the same research and exposure and study and rearrangement that an ISFP artist has done, in order to “get it”. It can be “too subjective”. That’s why ISFP musicians like Buckley (and their albums/shows) are often described as “underrated and misunderstood”.
WIM HOF: ESTP (Se-Te-Fi-Ni)
He seems to get very technical sometimes (+ST). He mentions emotional things that seem to fit Fi3 better than Fe2 (there was the ESFP option for him, too), as something that needs some special kind of “work” to “come out” (which makes me think T>F). Also, I’d say there’s a choleric base here. He talks about “being in command”, “the masters”, “in control”, “purpose”, “drive”, “move beyond your fear”, “you have the power”, etc. His story sounds about will-through-enjoyment/interaction. There seems to be a focus on his accomplishments more than the community thing. Maybe the social side is organized by or with the help of other people? Also, his method really seems Te2 from Se1, “the correct factual talking points” being part of that Te.
“It goes past your thoughts”, “You can be strong without thoughts”, “Let go of your thoughts and your stress and open up to your heart. It is only when you let go that you will truly be able to reconnect with the universe, with the nature buried deep within your cells”. I think this goes better with gTi. The last one could be Fi3 being the “key” to Ni4. “My heart is my guide, my feeling and brings me everywhere. For decades I trained just by feeling”. “I learned how to deal with grief, emotional scars and appreciate life again”. Again Fi3 better than Fe2. He reminds me of an ESTP that I know, and also a bit of [Socrates and] Diogenes and a sort of “natural ESTP” guy. Natural Hacker, Present Advantage, Current Condition Of Experience, etc.
SUSAN CAIN: INFJ (Fi-Ni-Se-Te)
She actually seems to have melancholic somewhere. She could be an INFJ with quite a lot of energy and willpower. She was a Wall Street lawyer but discovered that her “true” place is being either a writer or a research psychologist, both very fitting for INFJ. She is/was also related to something about “ethical leadership”, and in general she seems Fi>Fe. She talks about “longing” as a good thing (could be Fi1), likes quotes by several INFJs (Robert A. Johnson, Freud, Hesse), and also “authenticity over showmanship”. She also says “There’s zero correlation between being the best talker and having the best ideas. I mean zero”, which really fits someone with Fi1—gFe1/Te4. One of her main things is that she wants to “reshape workplace culture and design”, with the focus on the physical aspect quite fitting for Se3, I think. So maybe a sort of more public version of Isabel Briggs Myers?
EDWARD HOPPER: ISTJ (Ti-Si-Ne-Fe)
There’s the word “skeptic” repeatedly used to describe him (apart from “taciturn” and others that really sound introverted and melancholic, of course), his interest in the individual/social divide (Ti1//Fe4), the way he relates women to danger (+Ti1), his “intellectual sophistication”, his links to Emerson, Shakespeare, Goethe and Plato (three ENFJs, one ISTJ, all West Quadrant), his liking for the theatre and French culture, etc. I haven’t found choleric traits, I think SJ works better than NT. There’s his “solemnity”, how he seems too shy, private and secretive for /choleric, or how he drew himself as a “Non-Anger man”, for example. And there’s a sort of IS-repetition going on in him, too, a certain aversion to change (he’s also described as “consistent”), with certain lifestyle habits that remind me of Kant and Lovecraft (both ISTJ) (Known Rules). He also talks about his “inner experience” and “personal vision”. He fits Task Practice, Personal Builder, responsible+pessimistic, and inner principle of experience, for example.
RUMI: ESFJ (Fe-Se-Ni-Ti)
He matches Religious Master perfectly (including his “recognition as an authority on religion”), among other things like Matter Matcher (with that moment when he started dancing and singing before the goldsmith, for example), and of course: King Of Hearts. He’s all about SF-inclusion, against prejudices, etc: “always encouraged tolerance, peace and compassion”, “no bigot”, “acceptance of others’ religious beliefs”, “welcoming to all people”, “regard for the meanest of men”, “refused to allow the dogma of his religion interfere with his relationship with God or other people” (gTe4), “exploring people’s relationship to God as well as to themselves, each other, and the natural world”, etc. This is basically an ESFJ summary: “drew on the entirety of his life: the lived experiences in the physical world as well as the numinous glimpses of eternity” (=Se2-Ni3), “but the underlying and resonating power of all of his poems was love” (=Fe1). He’s described with rather expressive and Fe1-terms like “passionate”, “fervor”, “rapturous”, “completely enthralled”, “mad”, “mercurial”, etc.
PTOLEMY: ISTJ (Ti-Si-Ne-Fe)
He’s too similar to Plato and Euclid, and too focused on perfection and stability (S>N). He “proposes a dually rational and empirical criterion of truth, where the faculties of sense perception and thought cooperate in the production of knowledge” (quite literally Ti1+Si2): “A human being can have knowledge only of something perceptible”, the rest he describes as “mere conjecture”. He’s seen as “rather a collector and condenser of the scientific facts and methods than an original discoverer or investigator” (S>N, and an example of ISJs being Curators).
His goal is something very ISTJ and pure melancholic: what is the “good/correct life” (→ inner principle of experience). In his case: “mathematics is the best in its abilities to render knowledge and transform the human soul into its most perfect condition”, “to be like the divine, mathematical objects of the heavens, the movements and configurations of the stars”, “a condition that resembles divine, astronomical objects, which are constant, well ordered, commensurable, and calm”. Also: “in Ptolemy’s philosophical system both astronomy and harmonics produce the virtuous transformation of the human soul, just as in Plato’s Timaeus the study of the heavens and harmony facilitate the ordering of the human soul’s orbits”. And: “Ptolemy’s ethics is, after all, Platonic”.
One of the things he made was a “chronological table of reigns up to his own time” (→ Lore Engineer), and I think the idea of “the individual as unable to resist the greater cycles of change which happen to the wider community” could be seen as a manifestation of Ne3<Fe4. His approach to astrology includes the stars and planets emitting rays that affect people and things, and I keep getting Lovecraft vibes with that kind of stuff, not the NJ-foresight kind.
LEIBNIZ: ISTJ (Ti-Si-Ne-Fe)
He was too close to Plato’s thinking: “Besides a Platonist account of the soul and its relation to the body, the young Leibniz also took up a Platonist epistemology”, and “remains committed to these doctrines throughout his philosophical career”. He also shared Plato’s and Descarte’s “innatism”, and there are links with Bertrand Russell, too. He didn’t use or seem to refer to IN-symbolism at all (his thing is notation, which is not the same), and he was too much about history, economics and “best of all worlds” for Se.
With all the talk about different perspectives he really seems to be Si>Se: “The divine perfections are concealed in all things, but very few know how to discover them there. Hence there are many who are learned without being illumined, because they believe not God or the light but only their earthly teachers or their external senses and so remain in the contemplation of imperfections”. Then: “The journey to knowledge begins when one “withdraws from the senses and draws back into his own mind” + “we must learn to see beyond the dissonance” (Si2 beyond gSe2).
He was focused on the “systematization and formalization of knowledge” which is just very fitting for pure melancholic. “His typical approach seems to have been to start by trying to create a formal structure” (reminds me of the Structurist name for ISTJ). And I think his determinism fits ISJ’s “resignation” (Ne3-change slightly out of reach).
Things like these remind me of Lovecraft’s stories (especially The Shadow Out Of Time): “everything is affected by anything that happens in the universe, to such an extent that he who sees all can read in each thing what happens everywhere, and even what has happened or what will happen, by observing in the present what is remote in time as well as in space” + “He came to believe that plenitude requires that each moment in the eternity of the world contain its whole history: past, present, and future” + “each mind perceives the entire world at every moment of its eternal existence”.
“As a person, Leibniz seems to have been polite, courtierly and even tempered. In some ways, he may have come across as something of a nerd, expounding at great depth on all manner of topics”, which I think goes well with the pedantry trait from list 02, and being non-choleric. I think his role as adviser and his search for peace (alliances, reunifications, etc) also points at SJ>NT.
RENÉ MAGRITTE: INTP (Ni-Ti-Fe-Se)
We already have Duchamp as ISTP, and now I’ve been reading and I think René Magritte was INTP. His approach was clearly theoretical, with an “exclusively intellectual basis”, and he even “stressed that he was more a theoretician than an artist” (just lots of IT points). His “main concern was the intellectual aspect of painting” and his “interest centered on the mystification of banalities” or “everyday experience”, which fits Se4 really well. That’s what he did: take common things and present them in a weird/incongruent or shocking way, but with a “sleek, seemingly hyperrealist style”. He “once said that he had neither interesting ideas nor extraordinary emotions. He saw only what everyone else sees”, in fact he used references like the Larousse encyclopedia for some of the elements in his paintings (all this looks Se>Si).
He was interested in philosophy, loved movies, and lead a “sedate way of life” (which sounds phlegmatic), with a “desire to live without history (even his own)”, very fitting for gNe1 (G1 being the non-function). He had the habit of insulting basically everyone, and wanted to irritate people on purpose (for example with his titles), which doesn’t sound ITJ. He was also quite irreverent and vulgar/profane, and he identified with Fantômas, which was a mysterious fictional criminal (Unknown Mercenary, and a bit of the Page Of Swords here, too). The word “disturbing” is of course repeated a lot regarding his work (not only by others but also himself). There are also INTP-Alien references in descriptions of his work, like this one: “haunting scenes of the alienation found in the most private and intimate place, the bourgeois home”.
If you get past the differences in style/technique you can even see some connections with Giger’s work, and there’s a bit of Escher, too (for example in Carte Blanche). He was an influence for Dalí and Buñuel, both of his same quadrant. Magritte fits other INTP terms like Scientific Hermit, Conceptual Discoverer, Abstract Scientist, Conscientious Rebel, Theorist+Designer+Modeler+Architect (he studied architecture, too), Discovering Implications For Conceptual Challenges (quite literally), etc.
KONSTANTIN STANISLAVSKI: ENFJ (Fe-Ne-Si-Ti)
He had a “natural sense of phrasing”, could recite long speeches from memory, had “dramatic ability and musical talent”, an “insatiable” “appetite for acting”, and was also described as “dynamic” and energetic, “in a hurry”. He was also quite not-STJ with money: “The problem of meeting year-by-year running costs once his money had run out did not enter his mind” (this was about the “loss-making” Society of Art and Literature, “which would bring together artists of all kinds”). And about the Alekseiev factory he ended up saying: “I would honestly not be afraid to lose my money. If there were no money I could go on to the stage. I would go hungry, it’s true, but I would be able to act to my heart’s content. Yes, my work at the factory is pointless and therefore of no interest”. In fact, he’s contrasted with Nemirovich, someone “practical” who’s good with “budgets, schedules and deadlines”.
I haven’t looked into it, but his system doesn’t seem to have a lot of Ti1-complexity, in fact he “never had any capacity for parrot-learning or the mechanical acquisition of facts, nor, conversely, did he have any gift for abstract or conceptual thought”, which kind of goes against ITJ.
There are many mentions of him being an educator and pedagogue, [artistic] director, teacher, innovator, etc. “Theater was a powerful influence on people, he believed, and the actor must serve as the people’s educator” + “the actor’s task is to educate an audience”. He “emphasized the ensemble and the subordination of each individual actor to the whole”, which could be read as an ENFJ leader doing the same with his followers. He was “extremely demanding” but “so charming you could refuse him nothing”.
WES ANDERSON: ISFJ (Fi-Si-Ne-Te)
Anderson is “obsessively detailed” and productive, very personal and old-fashioned (“retro-style feel”, “hipster”, “old-world charm”, “anachronistic”, “very old-school and traditional”, “lack of modern technology”, etc), making lots of references to books and films, and with a search for sophistication and perfection in his movies that really looks /melancholic (and J>P), just like his own dressing style: formal but “noticeably out of time with the modern era”. He’s also polite and soft-spoken, and his “sometimes childlike demeanor” can be an example of Fi1’s “childish mask”. In fact, he “never seemed to be a child at all, always dealing with weighty subjects and childhood grief or depression, he seems to have been a very “mannered” child”.
Some of his recurring themes are family/home (+Fi1), “intergenerational issues”, and “precocious young people” (there’s a recurrent mixing of child+adult, which I think fits ISFJ, the only phlegmatic/· IJ), and his work in general reminds me of Alice In Wonderland and Over The Garden Wall. In fact his films are described as having a “fable-like feeling”. There’s a book about him titled “Bringing Nostalgia To Life”, and I think the idea of nostalgia for a “long vanished” “golden age” with “grand surroundings that were nevertheless somewhat dated” can be applied to Tolkien’s work, too. There’s also the way that, “in his films, there are always elaborate plans or journeys, which always require plans, maps, directions, and paraphernalia” (very ISJ in general). He’s compared to Lewis Carroll and Woody Allen, for example. He says: “I guess I try to think up a story that I can sort of tell in a way that nobody else would tell it”, which could point to Ne3(<Te4).
LOU ANDREAS-SALOMÉ: INFJ (Fi-Ni-Se-Te)
Lou is totally Fi1. If you read about her you find descriptions that sound almost as if they were taken from Jung’s section about the IFJs. She makes lots of conscious personal choices (“reasons of her own”, “strong convictions”, “very sure of herself”), and her focus on “freedom” is actually about this: “a freedom of action and conscience that is purely subjective, and may even renounce all traditional values”. The ideas of “femininity” and “feminine charm” are very close to her. She has the classic Fi1 “bewitching quality” that provokes a “fatal fascination” in others, especially men, who believe she “seemed to anticipate their every thought”, but misinterpret her because she’s gFe1. She doesn’t encourage them, and is “unconcerned by the passions she aroused”. Lou was serious and determined (she obviously had willpower), with “inner intensity” and “integrity of character”, and they mention the “severity of the routine with which she pursued her studies”.
She writes lots of things (including poetry), and is described as “self-centered and self-absorbed”, fitting Fi1’s “self-love”/“self-admiration”, just like her “intentional mystification”, her “poetic license to re-edit her past” and how she “refashioned her past in pseudo-memoirs”, fitting Fi1’s “trying to make itself interesting”. There are also lots of Narrator aspects there, including the way she assigned parts to people in her imagination, and then “was startled when they failed to live up to them”. She “told tall tales night and day to a grand-fatherly personal god”, and one of her autobiographical characters is “a born storyteller”. She also has “fainting spells” and “fatigue”, which sound close enough to Fi1’s exhaustion, in fact this is mentioned later about her heart condition, caused by “nervous exhaustion”.
Her interests and writings fit IN better than IS: more abstract, intellectual and psychological than practical, historical/mythological or SF-service-oriented (some of her themes are really good representations of the Internal Achievement and the Soul Matcher ideas). They also mention her “indifference even to ordinary cleanliness”, her way of anticipating events, and how she wanted “constant growth and evolution”. She matches INFJ much better than ISFJ in the tables and lists, for example here.
PETRARCH: ENFJ (Fe-Ne-Si-Ti)
Reading about him you can find mentions of a certain “misanthropy”, but I think the social and E-current/related aspects are dominant. Petrarch was a “lover of friendship and sociability”, “marked by restlessness”, with a “constant need to seek out new places, new people and new cultural environments”, traveling a lot (“the first tourist”), and “craving recognition in public fora” (= Social Achievement). Described as “a typical representative of his age”, with “enormous prestige” among his contemporaries, who wanted “peace among Italian cities and states” and “saw himself as part of all of this, as a larger-than-life figure of historical importance and destined for great things” (very ENFJ).
There are idealistic quixotic traits like his attention to “exemplary ancient figures”, his “lack of realism”, and his focus on “virtuous deeds rather than technical mastery of any given subject”. His anti-Scholasticism and his links to Plato and Cicero are good points for Ti>Te. Among other things, Fe1 fits being “capable of experiencing great joy, also often led to intense dissatisfaction”. And the contrast between “contemplative versus active, a man in retreat versus a man on the move” goes well with choleric/phlegmatic.
He’s described as “a good fellow, but ignorant”, and a “naive intellectual”. His “lifelong search for who he really was and where his identity was to be located” is quite common for Ti4, and there’s also the way “he knows these works so well that there are times when he cannot distinguish passages in them from his own thoughts and even some times when he cannot remember that they are indeed by other authors”.
KURT COBAIN: ISFP (Si-Fi-Te-Ne)
Kurt was all about sensory experience, enjoyment and fun, not about possibilities, connections or meanings (S>N). He wanted to see and do many things, he drew and painted, sculpted figures with clay and wood, watched many hours of TV, went on amusement rides until he got exhausted, imitated voices and comedy acts, wore dresses, repeated melodies by ear, stole things, made short films, thought about being an actor or a stunt man, and even though he didn't actually want to play sports, he wasn’t bad at them.
He payed a lot of attention to everything that he perceived subjectively, quite literally from inside, for example the light through his eyelids and similar sensations, including certain "comfort" things that he whined about (he could even "appear fragile and delicate"), and all the drug-related stuff, which really points to Si>Se, just like his particular interest in anatomy (he collected anatomical models). It seems that he read Perfume: The Story of a Murderer many times, which would be very on point for someone with dominant Si.
People say Cobain could play any song after listening to it just once, and to me that sort of practical skill screams SP more than any intuitive type. It's the same with the way he went from being a "kind of a jock" to a "stoner": both are much more SP than anything else. The shock of his parents' divorce and the way he later felt secure and happy with the prospect of getting married could also be indications of S>N.
When he said he didn't like the exposure he was getting he was probably talking from the perspective of someone whose Fe is only a ghost function, because at the same time he complained that his band wasn't promoted enough. That's why he loved the attention but also didn't like it.
Kurt "always downplayed his success", and even if at first he imagined himself giving interviews as a rock star, when he turned into one he didn't try to present himself as anything amazing, in fact he admitted to copying others, for example, and could describe his own work as "garbage". That goes well with ISFP-unassuming. He could be quite crazy with his antics and jokes, but he "preferred a nonconfrontational style" and "with most conflicts, he avoided the issue until he was in a rage". He also liked working with kids.
Looking at post #84, I think it's easy to see Kurt as an SP-user and artisan that's very much focused on his inner condition (+IP), all the time, with a pronounced IS-useful and S-cherish interest in things (tying in with internal application). He was more improviser than searcher, more about interaction than imagination, and he valued things like blanket care, opportunities and impact over the rest. From post #32 we can take not only ISFP's charm but also inconsistency, if we remember for example how he often forgot, improvised and/or changed things while performing, and we can see a certain submissive side in the previous point about conflict and the way he could act "sheepishly" in relation to Courtney. Names like Composer Producer and Epicurean, and ideas like experience without progression and take it easy but try to enjoy it seem very appropriate in this case.
WHITNEY HOUSTON: ENTJ (Te-Ne-Si-Fi)
I read about her and found many points for ET first, then J>P, more committed, controlling and "externally appropriate" than interactive, inventive or spontaneous, and also NJ>SJ. She fits very well Jung's description of Te1: "Often the closest members of his family, his own children, know such a father only as a cruel tyrant, while the outside world resounds with the fame of his humanity" (replacing 'children' with 'husband', etc) + "the conscious altruism of this type, which is often quite extraordinary", etc. I think she was too aggressive and even unpredictable for ESTJ, and she also had a tendency to lie and make promises with no follow up, which goes better with EN-tricky than ESJ in general. She also "never used a lot of makeup" and wasn't "a person excessively concerned with dress", either, or hair.
She had "an air of arrogance that was at once both intriguing and off-putting. If someone did try to approach her, she would stop them with a cool, wary look of disdain" and "She wasn’t very friendly. She never went out of her way to make any friends". These remind me of Te1's potential for a "constant tendency to make negative assumptions about other people", and the repression of feeling-related activities like "cultivation of friends".
These are more descriptions suitable for ENTJ: "self-assured", "powerful self-confidence", "determination and concentration", "calculating", "she was tough, ambitious, and never lost sight of her goal", "ready, willing, and able to accomplish all of her goals", "in control of her own destiny", "insisted on getting her way. If someone else wanted something, Whitney wanted it more and would move mountains to get it. Once the chase was over, she was no longer interested", "has great authority", "can be demanding", "volatile temper", "famous temper", "ever feisty", "hostile and rude", etc. There's also her "regal bearing", and how she "liked to refer to everyone who worked for her" as "Royal Family" (EJs are the Kings).
PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN: ESFP (Se-Fe-Ti-Ni)
He was described as "very popular", "open, heart-on-his-sleeve", "over-gesturing", "attention-seeking", "fun", "could tell a story and light up a room", "delightful and sweet and wonderful", liked by everybody, "generous", etc. Apart from acting itself, I see a lot of EF points in his theater work. For P>J we have his many short-lived jobs (which include waiter, children's caregiver, lifeguard and cashier, quite fitting for an ESFP), his versatility, and the fact that he was more character than leading actor (although this isn't always like that). About his addictions (he was also "addicted to food"), he says he "had no self control", which fits Se1//Ni4. Also, at first when he was all about sports he was even described as "a jock" (+SP).
I think his "sad" or "fragile" moments could be related in part to events or circumstances in his life (for example his parents' divorce, or the effect of things he takes), or to some kind of worry or insecurity, that is: not necessarily an indication of introversion. He's actually described as "fearless", "risk-taking", "engaged" and "passionate", someone who "approached acting with vigor and intensity", giving everything instantly (fitting E-responsive), "jovial" and "really happy", etc. He yelled at another actor during a shooting because he "had gotten lazy", but of course he was "a friend to all actors in the community". As important parent advice he said that "you had to tell your kids that you loved them, and not assumed they knew", and "thought it was important to be physically affectionate with them" (something he does with people in general), which sounds Fe>Fi or just EF>IF (and goes well with ES). I definitely get a Fe2-Ti3 impression from him, in the sense of a natural acting ability.
He's described as someone "very approachable" and effusive, who "was taken by the sense of theater as a community" and "co-founded his own experimental acting company". Later he "would get involved in education in public schools". All of that seems apt for a person with conscious Fe. About his acting they say that he "starts with the physical and works inward to the soul", which feels right for Se1 and E>I in general.
SUSAN SONTAG: ENTP (Ne-Te-Fi-Si)
She is described as "tough", "brave", "bold", "daring", "high-strung", "cheerful, forthright, and a “rapid-fire talker”", someone with "no time for small talk" who "went straight to the point" (+ET), "a sort of rebel", "provocative" and "controversial", a "frenzied, restless doer" with an "assertive, almost aggressive self" and a "sadistic streak", "insensitive", "unfriendly" and "unloving" (several T>F points there), someone who "wanted to be very famous, very rich, very new, very innovative, and very avant-garde", and "a harbinger of things to come, rather than merely a conservator of literary tradition". On top of the various dichotomy indications, many things match what you can read about ENTP as Knight Of Pentacles.
Sontag "collected people and then dropped them when they were no longer useful", and she "had a penchant for “violent thirsty impulsive intimacy with people". These relationships would build to a bursting point; then she could stand it no longer and would withdraw, not completely, but enough to cause friends to feel abused". All of that is very Ne1 and very fitting for ENTP, in fact lot in post #72 could have been written about her. People mention her "love of argument" (classic idea of ENTP-debater), and she even said: "I’m attracted to demons, to the demonic in people" (ENTP as The Devil).