AKHROMANT
INDEX
ABOUT
FAQ
GLOSSARY
MBTI TYPINGS
MBTI RELATIONS
DISCORD
PHOTOGRAPHY
GENERAL
DIFFERENCES
TYPING
FUNCTIONS
TABLES
LISTS
WORKS
VARIOUS
NAMES
MEMES
MORE
PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPES: WORKS
The Picture Of Dorian Gray (1890)
I haven’t actually read the novel, but I’ve read about it, and about the author, and I’ve seen at least two movie adaptations (the images below are from the 1945 version). The idea of this post is that you can see the functions of an ESFP (Se-Fe-Ti-Ni) in the characters and ideas that give form to The Picture Of Dorian Gray. I think that’s the type that fits Oscar Wilde the best. The analysis of the story was a parallel line in the typing process (more about him in a future post).
Wilde said that “Basil Hallward is what I think I am, Lord Henry what the world thinks me, Dorian what I would like to be, in other ages, perhaps”. Well, many actors (EF) think of themselves as “artists”. That would be a first point (also note how the actor kills the artist). A second one is that I think Henry and Dorian have represent Wilde’s own type. They are just different angles or parts of the same global way of thinking + behavior. Henry’s [counter-]arguments, for example, are a very good example of what I wrote here about EFPs.
Let’s take something he says at the beginning, which seems to be his general “world view”, and see what we can find. ESFP matches that idea of “give form to every feeling” → probably Se1 alone, and a very Sculptor=ESP thing to say (it could also be ESFJ’s Fe1→Se2, but among other things the clear focus on individualism puts a lot of weight on P>J), “expression to every thought” → Ti3→Fe2, quite literal this one (that’s partly why I think he’s F>T), and “reality to every dream”, which could be the fact that Si is a ghost function for ESFPs (G1), together with Ne (G4), so all the options, possibilites and dreams are absolutely useless for him unless they come tangibly true.
You can see Se1//Ni4 in the main premise of hedonism and the idea that art should have no purpose (again quite literally presence without meaning). Another topic in the novel is the consequences of influence, very EF.
A function interpretation of the basic plot device could be like this: if you keep Se1 in its optimal form (in this case through a kind of magical enchantment), if people keep seeing you “young and beautiful” and thus as a “good person” because of it (Fe2), you can hide your internal abjectness (gFi2) from others. In Dorian’s case his gFi2 is physically there, as the famous portrait, which shows how he values himself. The two visions grow apart more and more as the story unfolds, and the difference, the whole narrative, is a reflection of someone who is very aware of the fact that X2 never reaches G2.
SHERLOCK HOLMES IS AN EXTRAVERT, AND A SENSOR
Forget what you think you know about him. Forget the portrayals and the actors. Go to the origin of the character. Who is Sherlock Holmes? Here: “Doyle was concerned with finding a narrative way to show the potential of forensic science for solving crime.” Ok. Keep that in mind, and let’s just look at the conscious functions that a person would need to have in order to solve the kind of cases that Holmes solves so easily:
Perception
He needs to have Se, because Ne implies Si, and that function might distort the perception of what’s simply there, the mere physical presence, which is absolutely essential for Holmes’ job. Everything he does is related to actual presences and physical clues/realities (ES). He’s not imagining things at all: he mustn’t, or he would be out of work. Also, an ENT (conscious Ne) wouldn’t be waiting for cases to come and bring him out of his “boredom”, he would be out there instead, looking for them, getting himself in trouble, organizing some kind of project (for profit and/or power), etc. The basic standpoint of Holmes is not enterprising or visionary: he sees things as they are.
Judgment
He needs to have Te, because his knowledge is practical and objective (botany, geology, chemistry, anatomy), not theoretical, conceptual, imaginary or whimsical (Ti). One of the clues for identifying Te>Ti is how current and widely accepted is someone’s knowledge, in contrast with “arbitrary” or fanciful ideas. The fact that you need to adapt the character’s knowledge to the times (new technology, etc), so that he can work on different eras without losing his essence, means that he is an extravert with conscious Te, that is: an ET. If he was an IT you wouldn’t need to do that: he’d probably be equally misunderstood and/or undervalued, and not in a glamorous way.
So Holmes’ proper functions are Se/Ni and Te/Fi.
Now of course, many people will think that makes him an “INTJ”, but news flash: INTJs don’t have Te, they are Ti-dom /)☉ ☉(\ Holmes’ extraverted functions can’t be unconscious (tertiary/inferior), otherwise he would be prone to forget things related to them, and it’s just too obvious that he is the complete opposite of that. Again: Sherlock is an extravert. He’s always occupied with the objective circumstances, that’s virtually the foundation of the character. He’s not busy with internal or universal questions (“Knowledge of Literature: Nil. Knowledge of Philosophy: Nil”), and he doesn’t take care of things with an IS’s historical/reliable manner, either. But what about…? No, he isn’t. All ITs have conscious Ti, and Sherlock has Te. He’s a researcher and scout, not a scientist or instructor. Breaking news: ISTs don’t even have Se.
And that obsession with typing everyone as an “IN” is a real problem. One evident cause is that most “typologists” have absolutely no idea what they are doing. They don’t know how the true MBTI types are, what the real cognitive functions are, etc. They are making the system completely meaningless, harming precisely those who they pretend to see everywhere. It’s like a sadder version of The Boy Who Cried Wolf: instead of ‘wolf’ is ‘someone who could find help in typology’. (Also this, and more).
Sherlock has conscious Te and Se, and that makes him an EST. We only need to figure out the fourth letter: J/P (or which one is dominant: Te or Se). That’s the main obstacle here, mostly because Doyle doesn’t seem to care about the plausibility of his character’s psychology: “Sherlock Holmes, it seems fair to say, was a composite of several historical, living or invented figures.” And “Sherlock Holmes is an austere masterpiece; a universally recognizable character made up of several true-life or imagined ingredients.” Even though he’s interesting as a fictional person, Holmes is written as a very contradictory human being. He is strong, but he says he’s “only a brain”, that his body is an “appendix”. He says he has “few athletic tastes”, but practices several sports, including boxing. There are lots of contradictions like that.
In a sense, I think Doyle wrote Holmes as some kind of wild card, with only a few “stable” things, so he could pick and choose from those various sources. He disguises himself often, and is able to do almost anything the author wants. He is/works as the case/story requires: sometimes he wants to do something, sometimes he doesn’t. Sometimes he uses a method, sometimes the opposite, or something random. People try to find a sure foundation in all that, a foothold, but there isn’t, it’s all a show, a performance.
If Holmes is a gentleman, then he is an ESTJ, of course, but if he is an unpredictable addict, impatient and a bit criminal, then he could be an imaginary version of someone like Harry Houdini, for example: a rather frenetic ESTP showman who loves admiration and applause. That’s what I think. I think Holmes puts himself to work on different [weird] efforts and [shocking] tasks depending on his interest on the case and the newness of the potential sensations and thoughts. I think he is looking for exposure, not decision. He’s more hacker than architect.
H. P. Lovecraft - The Shadow Out Of Time (1936)
Lovecraft wrote many interesting stories, but I always remember this one in particular, especially in the context of psychological types, because it contains many things that can be useful to understand his: ISTJ (Ti-Si-Ne-Fe). You can read the full text here: https://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/fiction/sot.aspx.
The general standpoint is that of someone who can have all kinds of thoughts and ideas (Ti1). It’s not difficult to notice how the writer takes an idea and gets really intensive with it, using numerous words to describe it and explain it, exploring all its implications, etc. There’s Ti-originality and strangeness everywhere, and you can see how he’s always raising questions, making conjectures, pitting theories against each other, answering his own doubts, and describing things in detail, very scrupulously and systematically, paying attention to lots of dates, hours, places, visions, forms, etc, and their exact order and configuration, like some sort of forensic investigator or archeologist. He’s really all about perfection (pure melancholic), and doing things right. There’s also a sense of needing security, very fitting for an SJ type.
BACKGROUND
The protagonist, Nathaniel, starts by asking for “a final abandonment of all attempts at unearthing those fragments of unknown, primordial masonry which my expedition set out to investigate”. Right there we get the impression that this is someone with ghostly Se, someone for whom physical reality is dangerous because it can be “a frightful confirmation of all I had sought to dismiss as myth and dream”. That’s why he’s happy to have lost “the awesome object”: he prefers to deal with his strange experiences if he takes them as hallucinations. This is all Si2/gSe2.
Then he proceeds to explain the story, “prefacing the revelation itself with a fairly ample summary of its background”.
The brief fictional biography matches an imaginary ISTJ very well. He studies economics and teaches political economy (TiFe+SiNe), is married and has 3 children. He seems a very formal, traditional and reliable person.
Then he talks about “the shadow which fell so suddenly upon me from outside sources”, “from somewhere else”. He explains that it was as if “someone else was trying to get possession of my thoughts”. The way he explains it is very visual, though: he talks about seeing “strange shapes” and feeling that he was in a different room. He fell unconscious, and the event was the start of a “stupor” that lasted more than 5 years.
The description of that peculiar state can be seen quite easily as Ti1>Si2, basically how the mind controls the body, how considerable changes or variations in thought/identity have a determining effect on sensory elements with an internal origin, like speech, facial gestures, movements, etc. ISTJ is a type that, through the power of his own thinking, can imagine/see himself as basically anything.
The entity that took control of Nathaniel seemed to be aware of the future, but wanted to hide its true identity and knowledge, which sounded strange and extensive. It wanted to “master certain points in history, science, art, language, and folklore, some of them tremendously abstruse, and some childishly simple”. It was able to read and understand written things almost instantly.
While in this state, people were afraid of the protagonist. His wife said he was “some utter alien usurping the body of her husband”, and divorced him. Two of his children thought the same, and he never saw them again (his second son stays with him). You can already see the similarities with another ISTJ writer and his fictional world: Christopher Nolan’s Inception. There are lots of connections between the two.
After a few years the entity-Nathaniel installed a strange mechanism in his house and tried to keep it in absolute privacy (another link with Nolan, and also with other ISTJs like Elizabeth Holmes, all very fitting for the Technical Monk). Then he used it for some unknown purpose, and a mysterious (“foreign-looking”) person took it away afterwards. He called a doctor and appeared to be back to his normal self. In fact he started talking about economics as if he was still in the classroom, resuming the lecture that had been interrupted 5 years back.
There are 7 more chapters where everything is explained, but I’m just going to focus on a few topics.
TIME
The protagonist writes about his peculiar conception of time, about having access to a timeless perspective. This is introversion in general, its historical and universal quality. While being “displaced” Nathaniel meets and talks to people and beings from all sorts of times and places in the universe, past and future. From this intensified perspective the facts of daily life and the current situation of the world, people, countries, planets, etc, becomes less and less meaningful, to the point of being almost insignificant in comparison.
BODY
There are passages when Nathaniel is afraid of himself. There is mention of “body-loathing” (gSe2, echoes of Kafka here, of course, another ISTJ writer), and even a moment later on where he’s “vaguely disturbed by the human form I possessed”, which is a complete reversal of reality.
I think the transformations of Alice in Wonderland and some mermaid stories (like Undine) could be part of ISFJ’s own fictional X2/G2 thing. There’s also the different creatures that fantasy authors like Tolkien describe, of course, especially if we take them as alternate versions of how they [might] see themselves [sometimes].
[NOT] DREAMING
In several occasions the protagonist has difficulty telling dream from reality = Si2 from gSe2. For example at the start of his final discovery, he says “I was awake and dreaming at the same time”, which is a very ISJ characteristic in general (although some ENJs might also feel something similar sometimes, with their gSe3/Si3). There’s also “I muttered over and over to myself that this was all a dream from which I must soon awake”. All in all, he tends to allude to his preference for Si (what I pointed out in the beginning) in various ways, at one time being “uncomfortably sure that I was not dreaming or deluded”.
ARCHITECTURE
Nathaniel talks quite a lot about internal/dream architecture (Si2 from Ti1), the design and structure of everything in his “visions” (this is again very similar to Inception), not only the buildings and cities but also animals, plants and even politics, economics, etc. ISTJ is the Historical Architect, the mind/dream/story architect, and the Personal Builder.
KNOWLEDGE
The extremely intelligent aliens in the story, the “Great Race”, are basically an imaginary ISTJ-species. They are all about thought, and have learned everything that is or will be known. They have “vast libraries” with all that knowledge (Ti is the library, of course). Their method of acquiring information is “a kind of mind-casting” which consists on sending their minds through space and time and into other intelligent beings, “entering the organism’s brain and setting up therein its own vibrations while the displaced mind would strike back to the period of the displacer, remaining in the latter’s body till a reverse process was set up”. This is quite literally an example of ISTJ’s same identity through different beings. (If you compare this with an ISTP fantasy like the one in Lost Highway, for example, you can get an idea of how the difference between J and P can manifest in this particular issue).
Some of those “mind-jumps” (fittingly described as “melancholy”), are “permanent exiles, whose bodies in the future had been seized by keen-minded members of the Great Race who, faced with death, sought to escape mental extinction”. This is what they did as a group to escape the destruction of their home planet, and it’s also basically what Charles Xavier (another fictional ISTJ) does at the end of X-Men: The Last Stand. The Great Race comes from Yith, and the cone-shaped beings they inhabit are actually a terrestrial species that was “occupied” en masse, something that they do again later in history in order to escape from the Elder Things. (The simultaneous back and forth time-travel of minds reminds me of another Nolan movie: Tenet, and a bit of what happens in Interstellar, too).
Perhaps some people would say this species could be understood as Te-based, but their nature and essential abilities imply they are always looking from the other side, the introverted realm. That’s what’s constant and true for them. They are literally immaterial intellect (Ti): “the mind of the Great Race was older than its bodily form”, and they learn about the world (and technology and all the rest) from that universal standpoint.
FAMILIARITY
Nathaniel recognizes that the visions he has are not dreams, but memories, and the letter he receives from the mining engineer in Australia starts the “confirmation phase”. Once there, he finds the hidden ruins of the strange place he visited in the distant past. “The particular structure I was in was known to me. Known, too, was its place in that terrible elder city of dreams”. “Everything was where I knew it would be”. All this section matches ISTJ’s Familiar Order perfectly. In fact he later describes it as “shocking familiarity”. That familiarity includes muscle memory: “I wanted to unlock something, and felt that I knew all the intricate twists and pressures needed to do it”, “the memory-rhythm was strong”, etc. This also matches ISTJ’s Known Rules, of course.
He expects to find an object that will either confirm that everything is true or “show only that I was dreaming”, which is basically the same as a personal totem in the world of Inception. And there is also his escape from a strange/alien world with recently acquired (stolen) secret information, while being chased by some sort of guardians of the place, which is actually a sequence that we can see in Nolan’s film.
phoenix-seven-tales said: Hi, I’m really interested in your typing method. I saw you typed Star Wars characters and I was wondering if you’d ever take a shot at the ST ones. I’ve been going over the typings that are often listed and always not seeing it fully. But I do understand if the whole thing was too inconsistent to really–type any of them, or find an archetype there.
Hi :)
I get what you mean, but I don’t really have a method :P What I have is a few indications that can be considered helpful when the task is trying to type fictional characters. One of them is that the only real type is the author’s [and the actors’], so it’s always a good idea to start there.
- From the author’s type you can get a lot of clues. You can see how [s]he might be interpreting certain dichotomies, functions, temperaments, etc. You can look at the relationships that [s]he establishes, etc. It’s important to notice where/how the author gets his/her ideas, too, and what is his/her actual contribution (because, for example in a film, it’s not the same being the scriptwriter than being the director). Another useful angle with movies and series is that sometimes the actors’ types are the same as their characters’, other times they are their Mirrors, or Ghosts, or they share secondary temperament (SJ/SP/NT/NF), etc. The connection is not always there, but it’s worth checking.
- I know that characters are not real people, and (as you said) many of them don’t even resemble in a meaningful way what could be a representative of an actual person with a certain type. So I don’t really mind leaving them without a code, I try to publish only those with some “weight” or “substance”. But just because I don’t publish them doesn’t mean I’m not trying to identify their type, of course. That’s precisely the situation with some Star Wars characters, for example (certain fictional works are just more interesting), and especially with lots of real people. The thing is that typing is about accuracy, not speed.
- Another important point is that you have to type as if you were the only person that’s trying to do that particular typing. There’s a really unfortunate tendency out there that tries to give value to the most popular typing, as if you could “type by consensus”. That’s totally the wrong way to do it, of course. No amount of agreement can tell you anything about the real type of anyone. It just tells you how widespread are the misconceptions, the ignorance, the mob mentality, the lack of curiosity and the meaninglessness. But it would be an equally bad idea even if people knew about the real functions and so on. You have to understand things for yourself, not by/through anybody else.
Anyway, I’ll try to use my non-method with Star Trek (I assume that’s what you mean by “ST”).
I’ve never liked the series or the movies. It just doesn’t feel right to me. What I see are huge amounts of dedicated fans, of course, and the whole thing ends up feeling like some kind of organized religion, right? That was actually one of the most telling factors for the typing of the author, Gene Roddenberry: he reminds me quite a lot of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of scientology, who I think was an ENFJ (Fe-Ne-Si-Ti).
I think Roddenberry was ENFJ, too. He obviously liked hierarchies of command (J>P), saw potential in different things and was able to put it to use (EN), his stories reflected his social views, talking about present issues, etc (that’s usually Fe-Ti>Te-Fi, and EF). He was obviously an imaginative utopian, and I think you could summarize many of his ideas with the phrase “to the extent that it’s shared, it’s possible”.
✸ James T. Kirk has a lot of Gene in him, so I would say he’s also ENFJ (Fe-Ne-Si-Ti): a charismatic leader who inspires loyalty, seems to have some kind of choleric component (almost a requisite for high levels of authority), and “has a tendency to dive into situations without thinking them through”, which could be P>J, but also a rather direct reference to E(N)F>E(N)T, especially regarding someone that’s contrasted by a clear T-personvulcan: Spock. Oh, and William Shatner might be another real ENFJ. Apart from acting and singing, he wrote a musical, several Star Trek novels and the TekWar sci-fi series, was a camp counselor, is often described as emotional and “dramatic”, etc.
✸ Spock has to be T, of course, very likely ENFJ’s Mirror type: ISTJ (Ti-Si-Ne-Fe). He is “calm, logical, and stoic”, not really pushing or demanding, but more like a static point of reference for conceptual correction. His appreciation of music, poetry and chess match that of many (“cultured”) ISTJs, and his detailed capacity for telepathy fits as a superpower for someone that’s Ti1 (when those effects are something that mostly happen to the character that’s usually because their thinking is unconscious). I read somewhere that Kirk’s hero is Abraham Lincoln, another ISTJ, and perhaps a distant inspiration for Spock’s character.
✸ Leonard McCoy seems also F, like Kirk and unlike Spock. He could be an ISFJ (Fi-Si-Ne-Te). In fact he’s described as “loyal, caring and hard-working”. Also somewhat “grumpy”, partly because he’s “thrust into roles he has no experience with”, but also because he’s not an extravert so he’s never as enthusiastic about what’s happening around him as Kirk might be, for example (classic IS-EN contrast, and very Fi1). McCoy seems to work as a kind of moral counterbalance against Spock’s coldness.
✸ Montgomery Scott could be an ISTP (Si-Ti-Fe-Ne). He is an experienced and reliable mechanic who writes technical manuals, is usually somewhere in the background (I>E), shows sporadic bits of classic ISTP wit, etc.
✸ Hikaru Sulu could be an ESTJ (Te-Se-Ni-Fi): he seems more of a foreground and direct person, is all about science, botany, martial arts, and also a skilled pilot. (I haven’t looked at the most recent movies for this post, but as a curiosity, I think John Cho might be a real ESTJ).
I don’t know about the rest, but this could be a good start.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
One of the main things with Stanley Kubrick (the director of the movie) is that he was very good at identifying and utilizing people’s abilities and skills in his projects. This is often an NT-trait, and it goes quite well with the Investor name for his type: INTJ (Ti-Ni-Se-Fe). It somehow explains why his films include a multitude of sources, and the fact that the main stories don’t come from him. In this case the origin was a collaboration with Arthur C. Clarke, who I think is ESTJ (Te-Se-Ni-Fi). He wrote the story that inspired the movie (“The Sentinel”), and the original concept was about an alien artifact found in the Moon, which was left there to act as a sort of “signal” or “alarm” for the time when our technology was advanced enough to travel outside our home planet.
But there is an obvious reincarnation/transcendence theme going on in the movie, alongside plain technological advancement. I think Kubrick was the one to take the monolith, multiply it, and make it something else, or amplify its power, so that it [also] triggers particular phases of human internal evolution. This can be seen in function terms as Ni2 from Se3: an external presence that causes an internal transformation (fitting for “every presence implies a meaning”). The monolith would then be a form/instance of X3-jewel and/or X3-key, like a magic/religious symbol/totem, placed there by Fe4, the “Firstborn”, and pointing to them at the same time. The various monoliths in the film act as catalysts of change with mostly unexpected results, so they represent the idea of trial/experiment, too, which is usually an X3-related aspect.
Kubrick describes the Firstborn as “god-like entities, beings of pure energy and spirit”, with “limitless capabilities and ungraspable intelligence” (that ‘ungraspable’ fits X4 really well). I guess you can take them as some kind of “moral intelligence” that’s not really present anywhere, but that’s also everywhere at the same time. And there’s a reading of the whole thing, especially if you look at the final version of the movie, that says the aliens themselves are not important, because they might be just a representation of humanity’s own future (basically what Christopher Nolan puts more explicitly in Interstellar). This also matches the way X4/G4 are seen sometimes, and the way Jung says “the unconscious is the residue of unconquered nature in us, just as it is also the matrix of our unborn future”.
So we can interpret the contact with the monoliths as a door or bridge to the inferior function. That Fe4 is part of the INTJ whole, a mysterious but necessary component in an encompassing worldview that looks for totality: conscious+unconscious, introversion+extraversion. In the famous stargate sequence there’s a clear sense of entering a strange and chaotic world, which in the psychological analysis stands for the opposite attitude, a place where our regular understanding doesn’t apply. And even though I’d type Dave Bowman as an ESTJ (dutiful, hard-working, technically-minded, matter-of-fact, effective and guardian-like), his series of transformations could also be seen as an example of INTJ’s “sense of belief”: “same identity through different lives”.
This is something I found while reading an analysis of The Sentinel: “The most important theme is not the assertion that there is intelligent life somewhere in the universe, but assertions about the nature of man. Man is essentially evolutionary intelligence. The earth is our “cradle”, we are in the infant stages of intelligent life. Only when we are able to make it to the Moon will we demonstrate that we have reached a new stage of intelligence. Man is destined to evolve beyond the Earth, to transcend the limits of earthly life and our “infant civilization.” Therefore space exploration and travel is essential to human development, the sign that we are evolving into higher forms of intelligent life. The fantasy of some vastly superior form of intelligence (as represented by the Sentinel) is the fantasy about the real nature and future of humanity. “They” represent our possible future if we keep evolving, keep doing the space thing“.
Anonymous said: Travis Bickle is not INTP, he is ISFJ
Eh… no.
Maybe you are [still] thinking about the nonexistent eiei/ieie stacks, and have some distorted idea about those two types having the same functions, but look: in reality INTP is Ni-Ti-Fe-Se and ISFJ is Fi-Si-Ne-Te, so they don’t share functions at all.
Maybe you are mistyping a lot of ISTPs as “ISFJs”, because they do have Si-Ne and Fe-Ti. In that case what you’re actually saying is that Travis could be ISTP (Si-Ti-Fe-Ne). And the answer would be: Eh… maybe.
I think Paul Schrader is an INTP (Ni-Ti-Fe-Se), and that’s a big point here because the character is quite autobiographical. I’m pretty sure Scorsese is ESFP (Se-Fe-Ti-Ni) and De Niro is ISTP (Si-Ti-Fe-Ne). My impression is that the original character in Schrader’s head was not exactly the same as what it turned out to be in the movie, although this doesn’t imply a change of type. He says that if he’s not directing then his work ends when he delivers the script. I’ve seen some interviews where they show you how he wasn’t around when they were shooting, and they called him asking if Travis would do/say a certain thing, and Schrader’s answer was basically that the character was already theirs to build, not his.
In any case, I imagine Scorsese [re]interpreting Travis as if he was [his idea of] someone with his Mirror type: INTP, which De Niro can embody perfectly because he’s already ITP, and his work is mainly physical, about gestures, tones, movement, looks, etc. That’s my general impression here.
I can accept ISTP for him, too, but not ISFJ.
I know Travis could be interpreted as someone with a strange way of life coming perhaps from Fi1, who suddenly loses control. I know you could see him as a sort of “failed guardian angel”, but just think about it for a moment: the warnings are not absent at all, they are part of the essence of the movie, and the way he stumbles through and, in many ways, fails at that looks very much like the precise consequence of not having anything in common with that type (except introversion). In that sense, other types that could do something similar would be the ENTs.
There’s no ISFJ stoicism in him, he’s not really enduring personal attacks, or hard work, or some kind of loss, for example. He’s actually quite comfortable, if you consider his needs and how others live in that world. He doesn’t seem especially loyal, and he’s not taking care of anything or anyone. He might wish to do that, but in his attempts he seems more like someone giving orders (NT) or trying to provoke some opportunity for action (SP).
Travis is not poetic or religious, either (quite the contrary), and what he writes includes outright lying (to himself and/or to others), which would be a very strange thing for the private work of an Fi1 person, basically the opposite of what you’d expect. His writing is almost exclusively critical (IT).
Some might think the final attack is “some staggering act of an almost heroic character” but, besides desperate being a better adjective for what happens in the movie, Travis has been voicing his opinion very clearly before, to several people (including a politician). It’s not some kind of surprise to which “neither the object nor the subject can find a right relation.” His evaluation has been always in the open, not a guarded or secret feeling at all. It’s not even that personal, but with a sort of social component. The judgment might be a little distorted, but I think it comes from outside and goes back there (Fe).
Anyway, apart from I>E, what’s most evident is T>F and, very explicitly, P>J.
T>F
He’s not very good with tasks, but he’s even worse with people. I think that’s obvious. He was given an honorable discharge, and he doesn’t get fired from his job. He can use weapons and construct mechanisms. But the moment he has to interact with others, at a personal level, it’s all a strident problem. He doesn’t have friends or remember/talk about anyone from his past. He’s not cooperative (FJ), but explicitly isolated, which is something more T than F (as I wrote here, a post with a fitting title, right?). Also, seeing many people as “cold and distant” doesn’t work too well as an Fi1 complaint.
P>J
This is the most obvious. You only have to look at the organiz-ized thing. Getting organized is precisely one of the things that ISFJs do best. In fact, together with Travis’ “contradictions”, disorganization is another classic way of portraying Ps, not Js.
He says he wants “a sense of some place to go”. This is totally a P thing. If an Fi1/J person has anything clear that’s his/her evaluation of things, and the decisions based on that. Travis wants “to really do something”, but doesn’t know exactly what, which again matches a P person, not a J. He is basically lost, just watching and trying different random things, without a definite goal. His specific perspective also shows how he isn’t looking for any kind of belonging (SJ), but achievement (NT), or maybe impact (SP). Then when he talks about “not being a choice for him” that’s also because his primary mode is perceiving.
S/N
This is the hardest one. I’ll write a few points for each option.
INTP>ISTP
- Paul Schrader is INTP, and the character includes important autobiographical elements.
- Travis is not very careful or reliable, the consequences of his actions seem to rely too much on luck for an IS(TP).
- He seems more about blanket change than blanket care, more about relations than forms (for example the way he tries to analyze and comment on the psychology of people), and more visualizer than cherisher.
- The description unknown mercenary sounds more than appropriate for someone like him.
- Also, not sleeping is not a very Si1 thing, quite the contrary.
ISTP>INTP
- His work as taxi driver seems the definition of someone being useful. That’s a big one, even if, in a sense, he gives the impression of just being there, wasting time, somehow.
- Not that INTPs can’t do that kind of thing, but the mechanism that he makes is almost screaming ISTP, right? :)
- And perhaps you could see his irregular “missions” as those of an ISTP being underprepared. I don’t know.
- Ok. For the last point I’m going to talk about the end of the movie. If you haven’t seen it be careful because the topic can be uncomfortable. I don’t want to imply anything bad about any type[s] at all, but after a few years typing people rather consistently, I’d like to add one reason why, if we take the events in the movie as a documentary instead of just the imagination of the protagonist, ISTP fits better than INTP.
There are lots and lots of SPs that will always fight with all their energies to stay alive, of course, but from what I’ve seen, the reckless or desperate people that attempt/do the incredibly stupid thing that Travis tries/mimics in the film, are more likely to be troubled SPs than individuals with other letter combinations. There’s an explanation behind this, I’m not talking just for the sake of talking, and my intention, if there’s one here, is to tell people that they should pay attention and take care [of others] so this doesn’t happen, of course. The reason is because SPs are the types that can feel most detached from any meaning or luck/power in their lives (Ni4/Ne4). From that same observation, it follows that it’s precisely the NPs who are the opposite in this context, and that’s actually the main problem with Travis being INTP, if we take the movie as something that really happened. If not, if it’s actually “past realism” (like Schrader said), if the movie only aims to “act out the fantasy” (like Scorsese said), then it’s a different thing.
I really can’t say. Betsy seems some kind of politically-minded EFJ, which matches the Contrary types of both ITPs (ENFJ-ISTP and ESFJ-INTP), but we know very little about her. In the end Travis doesn’t have a type, because he’s just a character, but I tend to leave it as N>S mostly because of the Schrader-Bickle link.
Koyaanisqatsi (1982)
For those who have some time and haven’t seen it yet, I’d really recommend watching this film. You can do it directly here: https://odysee.com/@erebussarpeddon:5/Koyaanisqatsi.1982.1080p:a (you can even download the file). It’s a visual documentary with no dialogue, directed by Godfrey Reggio, who I think is INFJ (Fi-Ni-Se-Te). The soundtrack is by Philip Glass (don’t know his type yet). I like it a lot, too.
Apart from the wonderful images of our planet, the impressive time-lapses, the careful/symbolic editing, the attention to people (which looks F>T, and rather melancholic), the way the music works and so on (all in all lots of instances of every presence implies a meaning), I think you can also see manifestations of Reggio’s type for example in his love/hate relationship with technology, which would be Te4 (he talks about it almost like Star Wars’ Jedis talk about the Force, which would be Ne4 for George Lucas), and also in his approach to moral narration without words: the only word here is the title, which was actually taken from a primitive (“uncivilized”) source, very fitting for X4. Koyaanisqatsi (“life out of balance”), like the rest of his movies, makes a not-very-direct but appreciable reference to a certain indefinite value, acting as a fitting medium for the message of a Moral Guide.
Reggio also explains, as a sort of warning, how technology determines the way people think, and I’d say that’s a manifestation of gTi4←Te4, an awareness of how the interaction with machinery might have an unconscious effect, intruding in/as your identity and turning your attention away from responsibility (Fi1). This would be the F equivalent to Jung and other INTJs’ comments about keeping your intellectual independence and your capacity for critical thought, which can be disrupted by gFi4←Fe4.
More INFJ points could include Reggio’s religious background and teaching experience, along with the fact that he’s definitely a cooperative person (+FJ), always talking about his team and how the work is a collaborative effort, on top of his continuous involvement in people>task organizations, of course. His films in general remind me of another director: Terrence Malick, who I think is also INFJ.
They Live (1988)
Some interesting elements of this movie can be analyzed from the perspective of the director’s type. John Carpenter is an INTP (Ni-Ti-Fe-Se), and the first link could be the name of the protagonist: Nada, which means “nothing” and goes very well with Ni (Se would be “everything”).
Then you have, of course, the sunglasses. What they do is that they counter the “signal” that the aliens use to hide their messages and their own appearance, and from an INTP point of view this means canceling the ghost functions, especially gTe2 and gSi4, and focusing on the proper ones, especially Ti2 and Se4.
The sensation part is about the artificial manipulation of subjective perception (gSi4) and how the glasses repeal that and show the world as it is, the reality that’s always there (Se4). In fact, they show it in black and white instead of color, which also fits Se vs Si. It could be a way of symbolizing the way gSi4 gets sometimes “updated” for INPs, all at once, and the headache that the characters get from using the glasses fits quite well with the effect of looking directly at your X4 for too long (remember the Moon-Sun analogy).
In those images where the glasses reveal who’s human and who isn’t you can see the influence of INP’s inferior function (Se4): the enemy has instinctively repulsing features, often reptilian and/or creepily inside-out, because we humans have a deep-seated disgust response to that kind of presence, one that comes from millions of years ago (this primitive aspect goes very often with X4). It might also be mixed with Fe3 in the sense that it works as a representation of the aliens’ twisted society. Perhaps the peculiar appearance of the girl (Holly), with her striking pale blue eyes, is related to her treacherous role in the story.
The thinking component is probably related to the difference between the actual text/image and its conceptual intention (Te/Ti), and here I think the glasses might be doing a sort of “automatic translation” (like smartphone apps) instead of just serving as “reality filter” for neutral perception. That is: my impression is that the messages are not actually printed on the posters and dollar bills, for example, but that the objects themselves somehow carry/imply those ideas, perhaps through the shared evaluation that occupies INTP’s tertiary position: Fe3. In fact, one of the messages is “Conform” and another one is “No independent thought”. It all seems to go against proper+conscious Ti and the classic INTP independent trait. In this sense the glasses would be a sort of equivalent to Tolkien’s One Ring, because they put the wearer in X2-realm and keep him there.
A dislike for being [too] obedient is of course quite common for Ps, but even more for NPs (after all, they are the Rebels). All in all, I think this movie corresponds very nicely with the idea of Role Inside Real. Other movies in Carpenter’s filmography add to the Alien name, for example The Thing or Starman.
The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)
Jack Skellington is an ENFJ (Fe-Ne-Si-Ti). The original Jack is a Shakespearean figure, a brooding actor with delusions of grandeur (or revenge), and a certain air of tragic arrogance. He is no “inventor”. There are no “experiments” in the original concept of the story. Burton didn’t write anything about that (or about any of the characters added for the movie: Sally, Dr. Finkelstein, Oogie Boogie, etc). To me, his original poem is actually better than the film.
There’s a pervasive habit of making every protagonist in “children’s movies” an “inventor”, and it’s just tiring and a bit stupid (and other things). It feels just as natural and meaningful as those incongruent “romances” that they also put in there “for the female audience” (in this case Sally’s subplot). Jack’s “scientific” side is extremely forced and doesn’t match at all with the rest of his characteristics. If you take it away and simply assume that the residents of Halloween Town make their own version of Christmas presents, you get the same film with much less inconsistency.
Apart from the fact that ENTPs are not that much about “practical science” as everybody seems to think (ESTs are closer to the stereotypical image of a hands-on physical researcher/inventor/maker), Jack’s “analyses” are just silly jokes. He’s not clever in a T way at all, and he doesn’t have a clue about conceptual things. I think that’s evident. He memorizes stories and songs, the theatrical part of Christmas. But he isn’t doing anything “intellectual”. He basically just wants to have “Christmas fun” (that is: the leading role) for himself. The failure of his hopes and plans makes him feel really bad (I’d say that’s J>P in general), and the way he forgets about it is by focusing on another emotional/dramatic thing: romance.
Jack is clearly Idealist>Rational, all about inspiration and messages, not challenge or systems (NF>NT). He’s charismatic, persuasive, emotional, expressive, etc. He doesn’t work through dominance but obviously through influence (EF>ET). Not a hacker at all, but an actor, a performer, an icon. He literally represents a small world full of people, with a shared purpose. He is a double protagonist. And they even call him King, right? (EJ).
Sally: ISFJ (Fi-Si-Ne-Te). She’s loyal, hard-working and good-hearted, but at the same time capable of standing up for herself, [surprisingly] creative, and in love with a somewhat famous person who doesn’t notice her, partly because her admiration is hidden, not externalized.
Dr. Finkelstein: ESTJ (Te-Se-Ni-Fi). He wants and makes someone like him: that’s one of the main themes related to ESTJs (not really trusting nature as it is/works, wanting to control it, “improve” it, etc), with another example being James Cameron and his Terminator. I think Finkelstein can be considered a particularly selfish version of the inventor in Edward Scissorhands.
Mayor: ESFJ (Fe-Se-Ni-Ti). Those two faces are a very good representation of the rapidly changing moods and expressions that this type (Politician) can have.
Oogie Boogie could be ESTP (Se-Te-Fi-Ni). He is the one that relies on dominance (along with Finkelstein, of course).
Strange Days (1995)
I think the basic sci-fi idea of this film is based on William Gibson’s “Fragments Of A Hologram Rose”, which “introduces the theme of virtual reality: here, ‘Apparent Sensory Perception’ or ASP, a system for vicariously experiencing other people’s recorded activities”. The movie replaces the “ASP” with the “SQUID”, but the idea is basically the same. Gibson is an ISTP (Si-Ti-Fe-Ne), and I think in both cases the machine is recording the subjective experience of the person: Si. The protagonist of the short story uses the technology to be able to sleep, and there’s a moment in the movie when a tape is analyzed and they mention that the subject has “some kind of distortion in his visual cortex”, which works really well as a direct confirmation because it’s saying that the recording reflects the internal perception: two different people watching the same thing would generate different results, and not just because of their different locations. If the machine recorded Se it would be more like a videocamera, objective and impersonal.
So, yeah, that’s it. That’s what I wanted to say. (^_^;) What? Some typings? Hmm, ok. I don’t see any remarkable type-portrayal, but we can take a look.
Lenny could be an ISFP. He’s friendly and compassionate and very focused on the human side of things (F>T), with a service-oriented inclination (+SF), too disorganized and informal for the police, and all about internal application. A relevant quote would be: “It’s my job to know people and what they want, what’s behind their eyes”. In fact, everything about the SQUID goes really well with someone who has dominant Si, and it could be seen as a sci-fi equivalent to drugs or alcohol, which can also lead to addiction. Lenny fits the ISFP ideas of Epicurean, Private Practical Messenger, Ideal Customizer (including his editing and that moment when he directs a woman on how to move her eyes while recording), Moral User (refusing to sell “blackjack clips”, for example), etc. Mace could be an ETJ, perhaps ENTJ, trying to keep Lenny from going astray, and Max seems Ne1, especially with his “it’s all invented / we have tried everything” talk, as if novelty was the only thing that mattered to him. He has a thing for weird sensations (to put it mildly), and he’s definitely disloyal, so I think ENTP fits.
Lost Highway (1997)
This film was directed by David Lynch, who is an ISTP (Si-Ti-Fe-Ne). The protagonist, Fred Madison, can be seen as someone of that same type, perhaps someone like the jazz musician John Coltrane (with a very different life story, of course). Starting with the whole vibe of the movie, and its very personal/subjective perspective (I>E), there are several things in it that point directly to an ISTP mind (although a rather deranged one, yes, thanks, Bowie).
There is Fred’s general behavior (solitary, quiet, controlled, critical, etc), and how it follows Jung’s ISP description, with an “amazing flair for all the ambiguous, shadowy, sordid, dangerous possibilities lurking in the background”. For Fred’s psychology “the real and conscious intentions of the object mean nothing to it; instead, it sniffs out every conceivable archaic motive underlying such an intention. It therefore has a dangerous and destructive quality”. I’ve seen Renee/Alice being described as “a distant enigma to him”, which fits her being an INFJ (Fi-Ni-Se-Te), not only because INFJ is one of the most enigmatic types (unknown), but also because it’s ISTP’s Distant type.
Then we have the fact that Fred doesn’t like videocameras because he prefers to remember things his own way, “not necessarily the way they happened”. This really gives the impression of someone with proper conscious Si and ghost Se (an IS type), and in this case we can also add the difference between Ti2 and gTe2, in the sense that he keeps drifting away from the actual facts of reality and into his own mind, his own reading of things, his own interpretation. All this (and more) fits quite well with Personal Customizer and Historical Hacker. The movie trivia explains that the character’s “intense dislike of camcorders (and the reasoning) is David Lynch’s own personal feelings about them”.
A third point would be Fred’s strange transformation, of course. There’s still a man inside the cell, but the identity of the person has changed: he’s not Fred Madison anymore, now he’s Pete Dayton. I think this is quite easy to see as a good example of what I wrote here about ISTP’s dominant and auxiliary functions (Si1>Ti2): the idea of the same being going through different identities (note how Pete doesn’t like hearing the kind of music that Fred plays). You could say there was a previous transformation, at his house, the night after the party, when he seemed to get “darker”.
I think Pete is an ISFP because of his more friendly and agreeable attitude and the way people treat him. His relationship with Mr. Eddy (ENTJ) also fist perfectly, with their interaction being relatively easy. His Si1 is still there, of course, in fact he has the “best goddamn ears in town”. Then he starts doing rather questionable things, his true identity (ISTP) starts coming back, and the Pete-costume disappears, revealing Fred again.
The Mystery Man is difficult to describe accurately in function terms, but he could be a manifestation of some or all of ISTP’s ghost functions, not only those unequivocal and certain Te+Se (he’s the one carrying the videocameras, denouncing lies, etc), but also maybe Ni (a sort of displaced internal awareness for Fred), and especially Fi, the desire/guilt behind the main character’s actions. Those are things that Fred would prefer to ignore or forget (he’s all about his own experience and identity). When he attacks Laurent the Mystery Man helps him, and I think that might reflect a moment of connection or a way of representing the (at this stage rare) correspondence between his internal world and the facts of reality, an event that “neutralizes” the Mystery Man, signaling a certain kind of “resolution” that’s been achieved, even if it’s only partial or self-indulgent.
Two manifestations of Ne4 in the movie are its circular narrative and how some scenes are basically different versions of the same idea, none of that being true progression. In fact, a big portion of the story can be read as a desperate attempt at internal escape by someone whose external options are severely limited. Inside that cell Ne4 feels more unreachable than ever, and in that context, taken as a ghost function, gNi4 could also be seen as the source of Fred’s imaginary power of self-transformation, in the sense that it tries to reach beyond what’s true for him and into someone who even has a different psychology.
NOTES
Some people complicate the analysis of this movie too much for my taste. I like to think there’s a certain logic to it, a few fixed elements that we can take as rules, even if most of what happens is distorted or imaginary. Otherwise it wouldn’t make sense to talk about it like this.
One of those elements is the general meaning and the structure of the characters. The meaning comes from this: “When asked as to the meaning of the film, David Lynch has referred to it as a “psychogenic fugue”, a form of dissociation where a person temporarily loses awareness of their identity, including their memories and personality“. There’s something similar in Mulholland Dr. (another Lynch movie), where the protagonist also imagines an alternative life where all her problems are solved or inverted and turned into desired situations.
The characters are like this: Fred, Renee and Laurent are real people, while Pete, Alice and Mr. Eddy are Fred’s distorted Si-versions (images) of them. When the protagonist is played by Bill Pullman he’s not imagining himself as someone else, but when Getty does he is. Also, video screens always show the reality of the past or what is happening, they are a sort of Se-archive/lens.
The X-Files: The Post-Modern Prometheus (1997)
I stopped watching The X-Files around the 7th season. The 5th and 6th had already been much worse than the first four, but the 5th had one of the two or three episodes that, years later, I went back to watch again. Now it’s the only one that I can say that I like: The Post-Modern Prometheus. I like the music, the photography, the humor, and the tale-like quality, with all those diverse characters in their small world. That’s the thing here: they are dismissed as “stereotypes”, but many of them are closer to what I’d call archetypical, fitting some MBTI types really well. If you want, I’d recommend watching it before reading. Ok. Let’s start with the show’s protagonists.
Fox Mulder: ENFP (Ne-Fe-Ti-Si)
The indefatigable believer, always looking for new clues, new phenomena, new stories. This is the series’ engine, of course. Not an introvert at all: his attention, interest and abilities are all about the present possibilities, and he is, in fact, easily lured by changes in the external environment.
Dana Scully: ISTJ (Ti-Si-Ne-Fe)
Serious and unimpressed, but also dutiful and thorough, with conceptual explanations for almost everything. The cautious counterpoint to Mulder’s enthusiasm.
Shaineh Berkowitz: ESFP (Se-Fe-Ti-Ni)
The classic example of a “normal person”, who can be quite oppressive with her compulsions, but is also an energetic caretaker. Many people mistype this kind of characters as “ESFJs”.
Izzy Berkowitz: ISFP (Si-Fi-Te-Ne)
He’s creative and seems to like trying all kinds of fun things. He has SP-related posters in his room (surf, bikes), and he likes jokes, but he’s also a kind of peacemaker.
Old Man Pollidori: ISTP (Si-Ti-Fe-Ne)
He’s a bit rude, and definitely questionable, but he takes care of living things better than others.
Dr. Pollidori: ENTJ (Te-Ne-Si-Fi)
I think the archetype of “mad scientist” fits some ENTJs better than ENTPs, especially if you take ‘mad’ not [only] as crazy but as angry and aggressive, in a “possessed” sense. ENTPs don’t actually “care” that much internally, they are not really “driven” like Pollidori is, for example. He wants to achieve particular results, like the Nobel prize, and has a clear (and dangerous) formula in mind of how things/beings should be, which doesn’t really fit ENTPs’ openness to discovery: I imagine an ENTP trying to start a circus or something like that instead.
Elizabeth Pollidori: ISFJ (Fi-Si-Ne-Te)
We only know a few things about her, but she really seems devoted and loyal, and her home looks great (I don’t think that’s her husband’s work :P).
Mutato: ENFJ (Fe-Ne-Si-Ti)
Apart from a clear admiration of people’s customs and a strong need for relationships, he’s cultured and has theatrical inclinations, and the way he talks shows a real internal passion, so I think he’s not so much a Guardian (SJ) but an Idealist (NF). And of course, he’s not an introvert (the story is in part about that). His case is a good lesson (and even a test) on the way people think about E/I.
Cher: ESFJ (Fe-Se-Ni-Ti)
I don’t know much about her, but it all points to that.
Bonus: the highly reserved reporter could be an IN(T)J, and the brazen cook might be another ESFP.
Dark City (1998)
The fictional world of this movie is a very interesting representation of INFJ’s cognitive functions: Fi-Ni-Se-Te. What follows is based on the assumption that the director Alex Proyas is an INFJ himself: The Crow is about an afterlife personal revenge, Knowing is about predictions/religion, Gods Of Egypt is about… well, Ancient Egypt (cults, reincarnation…, you name it, totally INFJ), etc. He talks about a “very subjective experience”, and an interest in various “philosophical views of the world”. Other types might be into that, but I don’t think Proyas is conceptual or “scientific” in an IT way, for example, and he’s very close to the artist/musician world, has a very elaborate style, etc. It all fits quite well for INFJ. In any case, it’s better if you watch the movie before reading.
This is just a curiosity, but the protagonist of Dark City (John Murdoch) is a bit like a strange sci-fi version of Harry Potter: someone with extraordinary innate powers [that he shouldn’t have], who is essentially “destined” to “make things right”. I mention this because J. K. Rowling is one of the few correctly typed INFJs out there. However, in this case the relevant elements are not the characters but the story environment, the titular city, and what happens in it. You have to watch the film to get the full picture, and then go backwards, in a sense, to see how the various aspects and functions correlate. So, yeah, let’s do that.
Te4 is the magical/sci-fi “mechanism” of the movie, quite literally an external impersonal thinking (machines) that certain minds can access and use (“tune”), supposedly through some unspecified “language”, to cause all sorts of effects (“focus their telepathic energies”). I think the movie assumes that this power is theoretically limitless. Being hidden and underground matches X4 perfectly, right? (“floating” in the air, too). Also, remember how the doctor tells Murdoch that he can help him use that power consciously: he’s talking about a bridge between conscious and unconscious, more or less what Jung looked for in his professional practice :)
Se3 are those fantastical effects, including the [periodical] transformation of the world, the changing buildings, objects, clothes, locations and shapes. X3 is related to the idea of experiments and trials, precisely what the Strangers are doing. If you compare this film with The Matrix you can see the e/i contrast between the functions: here it’s the real world that changes thanks to some kind of “mechanical system”. That is: S and T are extraverted, whereas in The Matrix they are introverted.
Ni2 are the different internal lives that those changes in Se3 are supposed to generate inside each person, as inextricable implications. The Strangers use additional methods, of course (“implanted memories”, which could be a representation of Se3+Te4 at the individual level, taken as “packets of information”, also implying memory loss when they are replaced), but the underlying general idea is that putting people in different situations makes them different people. They might not be aware of that, but INJs see an unequivocal link between Se and Ni (this is repeated again in the “memory ingredients” scene).
Fi1 is the “heart” of each individual (even though they call it “soul”, see what Murdoch says later about “looking in the wrong place”), the “unchanging” part (“what makes you human”, from an IFJ’s perspective), something that “transcends” all the different eras and occupations, and very often includes love (or hatred) for another person. These two conscious functions (Fi1+Ni2) can explain INFJs’ belief in “fate/destiny” regarding relationships (and other events): they might believe they “can’t help but” fall in love with a particular person, for example (this idea of supernaturally enduring bonds is right at the foundation of The Crow, too).
What happens to the people in this movie is a sort of forced reincarnation, and the protagonist is able to stop it, which is precisely the aim of Buddha and other INFJs. This is related to gTi4 (see this post).
As you can see at the end of the film, there’s also a kind of power-fantasy included there: being able to decide everything, which is a very Judging trait. For comparison, Neo’s resolution at the end of The Matrix is more about showing others what is possible, a more Perceiving thing.
The Matrix (1999)
This movie is a very good representation of the SiNe function pair, its different manifestations and effects on different types, etc.
The point of view of the protagonist (and probably at least one of the writers’) is ENFP = Ne-Fe-Ti-Si, with the Matrix being essentially a sci-fi depiction of that Si: a whole world of internal perceptions that feels separated from the subject and can be seen from all angles at once (as if it was “floating” in the air) (in this case in computer screens). That feeling of separation is one of the main characteristics of the inferior function: in the movie they just made it actually physical.
Neo’s “awakening” is a symbol for many ENFPs’ discovery of their own Ti (similar to The Truman Show, for example). They feel like the world/society/system is/has been “using” or limiting them (and/or other people as well) in some unjust way. In the movie, the batteries analogy reflects the idea of not being the owner of one’s own energy, effort, work, etc (again Si4). The ravaged and mostly ignored “real world” would be the filmmakers’ interpretation of gSe4.
The potential ability (or “power”) of the different characters in the Matrix is related to the position of Si in their particular function arrangements:
Trinity is an ISTP: Si-Ti-Fe-Ne. Being Si1 she can be quite amazing in the Matrix (I mean, incredible), but her problem is that she might identify too much with it, so in the absence of her friends (and the various missions) she would probably “go back to sleep”, somehow.
Morpheus is an ENTJ: Te-Ne-Si-Fi, so he has Si3. This means he can’t reach “full control”, because his Si will always be conditioned by Fi4. It also means that he probably needed some time to get really skillful with it (I think the movie assumes he is a bit older than the rest, so now he can teach them).
Neo is an ENFP: Ne-Fe-Ti-Si, so in theory he needs some time too (or a very good teacher/training), but he can actually achieve “full control” because his Si isn’t conditioned by anything else. That’s precisely the basis of the movie. In fact, his Ti adapts to the Matrix (Ti3<Si4), and that’s why he is “the one”: ENFP is the only type that can comprehend and act upon the Matrix with the “coldness” of an adaptable reason (Ti3). (Those who say Neo is INTP are very likely mistyping him with the false e-i-e-i/i-e-i-e order).
Cypher is ENTP: Ne-Te-Fi-Si. He could be almost as powerful as Neo, but the auxiliary of his Si is Fi, making him the opposite of “cold” when it comes to the uses and pleasures of the Matrix.
The agents are ISTJ: Ti-Si-Ne-Fe. They are the personification of the Matrix being consciously run by intellect (Ti1>Si2), so they are extremely good with it, of course, but they are “bound by rules”: their view and control of the Matrix depends on preexistent concepts, so they are not endlessly adaptable like Neo is.
Two characters that don’t actually interfere inside the Matrix (at least not in the way that others do) are the Oracle and the Architect (this one is from the sequels), so they could be a contrasting pair with no SiNe: INFJ (Fi-Ni-Se-Te) and ESTJ (Te-Se-Ni-Fi).
Memento (2000)
As usual, but even more in this case, I recommend you watch the movie before reading this post (it’s going to be short but it assumes you’ve seen it).
I think the author of the story, Jonathan Nolan, is an ENFP (Ne-Fe-Ti-Si), and the protagonist of the movie, Leonard, can also be seen as ENFP. His mission is actually described as a “romantic quest”, and his amnesia points quite clearly to problems with Si4: he forgets his own experiences, mixes them up together, etc. The movie just imagines what could happen if the effect was radical and regularly recurring. (I wrote about another creative example of Si4 in the post about The Matrix).
The overall feeling of the story fits Jung’s description of Ne1 quite well: “every ordinary situation in life seems like a locked room which intuition has to open”, “In a very short time every existing situation becomes a prison for the intuitive, a chain that has to be broken. For a time objects appear to have an exaggerated value, if they should serve to bring about a solution, a deliverance, or lead to the discovery of a new possibility“. And I think the bits about reading body language come from ENFP’s Fe2-Ti3: some of them like to analyze gestures and facial expressions because for them they are always connected to the person’s actual thoughts.
The most interesting thing, though, is that Leonard’s tattoos are part of his gSe4: his way of having a “memory” or reference that his consciousness can access, in place of the real but forgotten one, Si4 (I wrote about this in post #131). Just like the other ghost functions, that surrogate memory is unreliable. Lenny knows that, and he uses it in very questionable ways: he lies to himself through the mechanism of his own mind (like I explained regarding the inferior function in post #140). This of course fits perfectly with ENFP being The Believer: in a situation like this he can convince himself of whatever he wants.
HARRY POTTER IS AN EXTRAVERT AND A THINKER
I’ve only watched the films, but I think it’s pretty clear that Harry is not an IF. Just because he doesn’t talk too much doesn’t mean he’s an introvert. Also, many people seem to think that suffering equals introversion (or directly “IFP”). Because extraverts are always happy, right?
E/I
For E/I you have to identify where his attention is focused, which side occupies his conscious decisions, etc. Harry is all about what’s happening in the moment, objectively: where is what, who is in danger, what can be done, etc. He always refers to and works through present realities, not concepts or impressions. And he doesn’t imagine things or show any artistic inclination at all, he’s almost strictly practical in a very straightforward way. He reacts, decides and responds instantly to almost everything. He isn’t theorizing or reinterpreting what he finds, he just interacts directly with what/who’s there. His role in the story is basically to get things done. The “wondering”, the “planning”, the scheming and the “philosophizing” happens through other characters, not Harry.
S/N
This one seems to be more obvious: he’s clearly S>N, [re]active and effective, a person who doesn’t really go beyond the tangible and the practical, in the sense of considering patterns and flows over immediate situations and needs, or seeing opportunities for progress/benefit, making plans, trying new things for the sake of it, etc. He’s described as someone who “lacked intellectual curiosity” and “did his best magical work when tackling practical exams rather than theoretical ones” (S>N).
T/F
Now, is he T or F? Well, “struggling to do the right thing” seems a problem that Ts would have, at least more than Fs, because values are unconscious for them. That’s what happens with Harry. They say he “tended to see morality in a rather stark, absolute manner”, which matches unconscious Fi, as opposed to a more nuanced (=conscious) view of it. He likes people, but he shows that by focusing on the task at hand. I think it’s evident that his internal world is hidden, private and [highly] emotional, not something that he displays gracefully or manages easily. In fact, many of his problems are related to that repression, which turns values into something that can suddenly overpower what’s normally a practical and neutral conscious disposition. All ETs have some choleric component of temperament, and that’s very often associated with descriptions like “prone to anger”. The way the words “courage” and “determination” are used for Harry seem to indicate that, too.
J/P
For J/P the problem is basically the same as with Sherlock Holmes. There are conflicting signs, sometimes he’s a rebel who shows “rudeness and disrespect” (EP), but others he looks more like a master (EJ), for example when Rowling describes him with the opposite word: “respectful”, and expressions like “an old soul”, which don’t really fit EPs in general. The previous point about morality would fit Fi4 (ESTJ) better than Fi3 (ESTP).
I think this is important: “Rowling modeled her young hero after her childhood neighborhood friend, Ian Potter, who once lived four doors down from her in her home near Bristol. Ian, who is now a damp-proofer, was a mischievous trickster when he was young, forming an unwelcoming habit of placing slugs on his friends’ picnic plates and encouraging Rowling to run through wet concrete with her sister”. That really seems like an ESTP, not so much an ESTJ. In fact, people make a distinction between Harry’s way of thinking and Hermione’s (ESTJ), saying their minds work differently. Other things that feel P>J could be the way he’s described as “irrational” and “impulsive”, with “a nice thirst to prove yourself”, “a certain disregard for the rules”, “a streak of pride and independence” and a “weakness for heroics”, which sounds more about application (SP) than correction (SJ). So in the end I think most points go to ESTP (Se-Te-Fi-Ni), although I’m not entirely sure if Rowling herself knows which version he is in her mind.
It seems a lot of people see FiTe+NiSe in Harry, but they mistype him as “ISFP” because, well, everybody mistypes extraverts as introverts, people don’t know what conscious Fi actually is, and also because they are using the nonexistent eiei/ieie order. ESTP and ISFP are Puzzle types, and there are lots of mistypes between them (especially E→"I”, like “INTP”-ENFP, “INFJ”-ESFJ, “INTJ”-ESTJ, etc). Harry is much more Hacker than Messenger, more Confident than Retiring, more Realist than Useful, more about Experience than Inclusion, more Spontaneous than Gentle, etc.
RELATIONSHIPS
Harry as ESTP fits really well with the types of other characters in the series. Dumbledore (INFJ: Fi-Ni-Se-Te) is his Contrary, so they form a nice global team, covering basically every angle between the two. Hermione and him are Crossed types (J↔P): they are often together but she’s the one that tries to keep some kind of order. I don’t see a clear typing for Ron, but I tend to imagine him as an ISTP (Si-Ti-Fe-Ne), which would make him Harry’s Ghost, and explain their natural friendship. Luna (INFP: Ni-Fi-Te-Se) also fits as Potter’s Mirror. And Sirius Black has the same type as Harry, something that I think is implied in the movies.
The Fountain (2006)
This movie presents a good example of a couple in which the partners have very different psychological types. As always, it’s better if you watch it before reading the post :)
The protagonist of The Fountain is Tom Creo, an ENTJ: Te-Ne-Si-Fi. He is a practical scientist, or rather a researcher, and he’s also reflected in the character of the Spanish conquistador, so I think the Warrior denomination fits quite well here. He’s clearly obsessed with one thing: finding a cure to save his wife, and he doesn’t really care about any kind of “perfection” (→ not melancholic), only about definite tangible results (achievement) (probably at any cost). His approach to discovery is inside a firm set of convictions. You can see how he outright discards any course of action that’s promising but not directly related to his goal.
Tom is angry most of the time, which doesn’t really match his own internal “meditative” image (that’s the “bubble” interpretation that makes more sense to me: a parallel personal level, not physically “in the future”). In fact, that image feels more like a fragile/ghostly wish (perhaps that’s why it ends up being destroyed, right?). The lost ring might symbolize gFe4: how he ignores the feeling-aspect of the relationship/marriage. I think this character could be easily labeled a “mad scientist”, just like The X-Files’ Dr. Pollidori. The cowriter of the story, Ari Handel (also a neuroscientist), might be an actual ENTJ.
A fitting typing for Izzi would be ENTJ’s Contrary type: ISFP (Si-Fi-Te-Ne). First of all, she’s the opposite of Tom in almost every sense: calm, open, friendly, artistic, playful, etc. She’s also quite charming and, in contrast with Tom’s N, she seems to value the familiarity of certain personal traditions: “It’s the first snow, we always…” but not to the point of actually demanding or imposing them (in an SJ way), of course. She just surrenders, and forgets about it. More than once, her actions seem just proper for a Peacemaker.
Her interest in mythology can be summarized with the belief sentence that I wrote for ISFPs in this post, the idea that the world is/comes from one living form (the “first father”). This, together with her book and her views, matches the Historical Messenger description (she’s a bit like Emma Jung, except that instead of the Holy Grail, Izzi’s book is about looking for the Tree Of Life, which in a sense is the same thing). And maybe the way she doesn’t seem to notice external sensations is somehow related to ISP’s non-function: gSe1, taken to an extreme degree of extinguishment. Those instances could be interpreted as a manifestation of something that Jung included in his description of Si1: “Considered from without, it looks as though the effect of the object did not obtrude itself upon the subject”.
Twilight (2008)
So, I think Stephenie Meyer is an ISTJ (Ti-Si-Ne-Fe), and Edward Cullen would be ISTJ, too: he’s the author’s real “avatar” (persona) in the books. Bella Swan could be ISFJ, with her focus on belonging (SJ>NP) and relationships (FJ>FP), her obsession and lack of curiosity for other possibilities, the commonality and the word loyal being both so ingrained in the character, etc. At first I thought she could be an extravert but she’s actually all the time inside her head, or even better: her heart (Fi1). That’s the character’s continuous point of view and reference. She’s not distracted by things like a perceiver: what attracts her matches something that comes from an internal judgment.
All the fantastical ideas about “food/blood” are a symbol of Si which, for the vampires (and ultimately for Bella, too) is everywhere, in everybody (Si2). And what the author calls “ethical” concerns about killing humans are not related to ethics at all, but to the protection of Fe4, which is basically “society” in a classical and “harmonious” sense. (This is exactly the perspective of the agents in The Matrix).
Inception (2010)
The protagonist of this movie, Cobb, is an ISTJ: Ti-Si-Ne-Fe. I think that’s also the type of the director/screenwriter: Christopher Nolan. As a vague summary, you could say Inception is a bit like The Matrix if we could see it from the point of view of an agent who’s actually a human that wants to go home.
The shared dream world is a representation of Si2. Being X2, and in contrast with Si4 in The Matrix, in this film the virtual space[s] can be manifold (both “horizontally” and “vertically”), and they are more localized and individualized than X4, which is a more “global” thing: there’s only one matrix, and basically everybody is inside. The characters in Inception generate and manage a comparable space always voluntarily, unlike the machine-ruled matrix, which is “simply there”.
As I wrote here, sometimes ISTJs have a problem distinguishing between the dream (X2=Si2) and the physical world (G2=gSe2), and there might be a kind of desire to make the latter match the former, which is what Cobb seeks. At the same time he doesn’t want to mistake one for the other, that’s why he uses a “totem”. This is all about X2-G2. (As a side note, in reality totems seem rather useless, because you are literally falling asleep next to other people, people who are often involved in illegal practices, so anytime there’s a dream session with only part of the team someone can just take the totem from you, study it, and put it back. I guess they all take care of that, somehow, I don’t know).
Cobb’s children work as a manifestation of ISTJ’s Fe4: a symbol of external agreement (society, marriage, family), depicted as unreachable. This matches SJ’s need for belonging. Also, the movie assumes that “the subconscious is motivated by emotion, not reason”, so even though Feeling is not about emotions, this could be a sort of distant reference to that Fe4.
The way Nolan explains the ending is actually a clue about his J/P: he says that Cobb doesn’t care about the totem because he is finally in the “world/plane” that he wants to be (that is: with his children). That’s a Judging point of view, of course, a global understanding that shows how sensation is an auxiliary of thinking. Simultaneously, in his unconscious, intuition has always been an auxiliary of feeling: all the jobs and possibilities that he sees and tries (Ne3) are conditioned by the same end goal (Fe4).
Mal could be ENFP: Ne-Fe-Ti-Si. Some people of this type have a similarly doubtful perception of the physical world (alluded to in other ENFP characters like Neo, or Truman from The Truman Show), which can make them imagine (“believe in”) different kinds of spaces and/or living forms “outside this plane”. I think this is what happens also with people like Carl Sagan (see the movie Contact, for example). Another side note: in almost every Nolan film the main character is indirectly responsible for the death of his wife.
Yusuf could be an ISFP: Si-Fi-Te-Ne, offering help but being required to follow certain guidelines (from Cobb’s perspective: Ti>Si), and representing a kind of person (those sleeping in his shop) that essentially lives in the dream (because they have Si1/gSe1, so there’s no difference for them).
Miles could be an ESTJ: Te-Se-Ni-Fi, because he’s all about “the real world”, he lives consciously in it, and he teaches actual architecture, of course.
If you like this movie and have some spare time make sure to check the synchronization that I found :)
[Speaking of mind maps…] I found this more than a year ago. I haven’t seen it anywhere, so I thought I’d post it here. The second album of Enigma, The Cross Of Changes (1993), can be synchronized with the movie Inception (2010), for some very interesting results. The trick is that it’s not a “perfect” synchronization, as in pressing play+play at once. It needs a bit of tweaking. There’s a countdown in the movie, that starts at 00:00:29 but changes immediately to 00:00:28 (I put it in the composite poster above). I don’t know if that’s a clue, or just a coincidence (like the synchronization itself, of course), but it surely makes you think, because that’s exactly the time in the movie at which you have to start the music. Maybe you can check it for yourself: play the movie on mute, and when it’s been 00:00:28 (or around half a second later, when the words “legendary pictures” can be read on the screen) start the album, on repeat. Watch+listen until the end (the album plays 3 times and then a few minutes more). See how they fit. Some things are a bit weird (and it gets a little tiring sometimes, yes), but I think the overall effect is quite remarkable. [This is not to show agreement, promote or endorse anything or anyone related to the movie or the album, in any sense. It’s just too striking to be left unsaid].
Black Swan (2010)
This movie is all about mirrors, and that includes the two main characters’ types: INTJ-ESFJ, which are what I call Mirror types. Nina is the INTJ (Ti-Ni-Se-Fe), and Lily the ESFJ (Fe-Se-Ni-Ti). I think Nina’s main standpoint is quite clearly about correction (melancholic/), and then the necessary will (/choleric) to get something very difficult done, always inside that correction, and even in spite of herself: “the only thing standing in your way is you”. The combination results in the general concept of achieving perfection. There’s also a clear match with the ideas of identity without expression, Personal Planner, and inner principle of challenge.
The whole movie has a very subjective perspective, it’s all very personal and individual. Nina is too cerebral (T>F) and private/isolated (I>E), and one of the main points of the story is that she could benefit from being a bit more like Lily, more open and expressive, in order to portray the Black Swan convincingly. That includes overcoming a certain fear of intimacy that’s in fact characteristic of ITJs (Fe4). Lily is sanguine first, so her correction is somehow “floating” over her enjoyment, and she’s also Fe1, that’s why the director says her style is “effortless”.
There are a few scenes that show how Nina tries to focus on her Fe4, but that’s her inferior function so she goes a bit overboard (“all or nothing”), for example when she gets emotional, or during that night out, with all the drinking and so on. That’s why in the morning she comes back to her conscious side and worries about losing what she had built. Balance is a very difficult thing to achieve, especially with X4.
Examples of gFi4 would be those moments when she imagines others laughing at her or herself being a bad/violent person, which I think are just a way of representing her own negative self-evaluation, something that she has to ignore when it appears as hallucination (gSi3 from that gFi4), or assimilate it in general, “own” it, while at the same time avoid being controlled by it, if we take it as a representation of her Shadow, the unfamiliar side of herself that she’s starting to discover.
The way Nina steals Beth’s things could be an attempt to reach her opposite attitude (including Fe4-fame) through a sort of symbol (totems, amulets) related to her tertiary function: Se3. Beth has had a long career as a popular ballerina, so it’s like those things can be seen as a “link” to Fe. Nina keeps them even after seeing Beth at the hospital (although she returns them in a later visit), which I suppose implies an acceptance of the bad things that might come along with the good ones, a recognition of the chaos and lack of control inherent in the extraverted domain (for an introvert).
The previous points could be taken together as manifestations of the inferior function being heaven-but-also-hell, just like her love-hate relation with Lily.
The Wolf Of Wall Street (2013)
The protagonist of this movie, and probably the real person behind him, too: Jordan Belfort, is an ESFP (Se-Fe-Ti-Ni). Other characters, like Donnie, Max, and others who work with Jordan, can also be seen as examples of ESFP (Mark fits ESTP better, and Brad could be ISTP). All in all, the film is actually a great rendition of something you could call Peak-ESFP-World, with a clear focus on a psychological inclination towards love for the object (ESFP is the Matter Lover).
Something that aligns with F>T for this kind of people is that the foundation for their shared values, their contacts, teams, gatherings and celebrations is pure and simple pleasure (Se1>Fe2), the pleasure of ownership and sensory enjoyment. They are not really trying to “achieve” anything (apart from more sensations), and the consequence of finding themselves being “superior” to others (from a monetary perspective, for example) is not really based on competition or something like that, but just their own self-gratification (they are pure sanguine, not choleric).
In this movie you can also see ESFP’s ability to sell stuff, how many of them consider wealth and possessions a way of improving or solving all kinds of things (“it also makes you a better person”), how they hate poverty, and how they can be really generous. In the background of all this you can find what’s essentially greed (in different degrees), a very appropriate motivation for marked ESFPs. A desire not only for physical pleasures and abundance, but many times also for a sort of indirect power, in the sense that their exhuberant giving can make others dependent on them, the classic situation where a beneficial trait, taken too far, can become detrimental. There’s some of this in the movie, for example the credit card reference in the “chop” scene. It also shows more direct negative consequences of excess and unchecked impulses.
Anonymous said: Hey! I know it takes you a pretty long time to type people, especially fictional characters, but I’d be really interested in your take on the Avengers’ types.
Hi :) It’s not the time, the problem is that characters don’t have real types, so analyzing them can be quite literally like running in circles: you don’t get anywhere, just tired and dizzy. With those in movies, at least in my case, and unless they reflect authentic psychological traits in some way, I tend to get distracted by the real minds involved there: the actors’, the director’s, etc. That’s the potentially revealing component, the true source. But sometimes it’s fun, I know, and we can take it as an exercise and talk about types as if in a simulation.
Disclaimer: the characters analyzed in the following text are too shallow and contradictory for their typings to be consistent or truly informative. They are essentially mixtures and distortions, and taking them as examples of what the actual types might be in real life is just not helpful at all, but harmful. So, please, don’t do it. I deleted the text once, but I have been thinking about it and I guess I can leave it here. Not for the typings, of course, but for other reasons, mainly the potential usefulness of the process itself, and the ideas and comments about typing in general.
This is going to be only about the Marvel movies from Iron Man (2008) to Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014), plus Avengers: Age Of Ultron (2015). I’ve seen a few more, but I don’t remember anything good or notable about them, and I’m just not going to watch them again. As you[’ll] see, I’m not really a fan of this kind of films (and even less of their “messages”), so my take is probably the opposite of a “fandom” one (in case you were expecting it). That said, I totally appreciate the question, and I really hope it helps because, well, I’ve seen the “accepted” typings and… ಠ_ಠ
The Avengers’ are action movies, so there’s not much room for character depth. That’s just how it is. The writers have some kind of entertainment plan in mind, they want to show this and that and the other thing too, and they need to pack it all in 2 hours. We can’t expect too much inner realism. On top of that, the most famous members of the cast [can] make contributions that go beyond their roles (because they have lots and lots of fans and the producers love exploit that), generating what’s basically another “layer” of meaning that may interfere with the story sometimes. So in the end they are all quite shallow in psychological terms, from slightly to extremely contradictory, and not as varied as it seems (or as many like to imagine). This is important because that lack of consistency and intricacy makes it possible to assign several types to lots of characters (especially the minor ones), too easily, so there’s not much to learn from them, only perhaps from the acknowledgment of these problems.
In a broad sense, the Avengers are defined by their “superpowers”, and maybe a bit by their history, but clearly not by their minds. You have one that’s essentially Dr. Jeckyll + Mr. Hyde, so the doctor is going to be shy, and the monster… angry. That is: the “psychology” of Banner/Hulk is a victim of predetermined factors. You have a strong patriot, too, right? Then he must be stern and serious, but also unsophisticated. Is there a prince from another country? Well, he’s obviously reckless and fun, right? But ultimately a leader, somehow. Oh, these two are basically ninjas? They are quiet and sarcastic, of course. Do you have a witch? She’s pretty weird, then. Done. In fact, Maria Hill’s summary of the twins is one of the best lines because it’s the movie being strangely self-aware.
Anyway, perhaps there’s more than that. Just a little more.
✸ Tony Stark (Iron Man)
ENTP. Ok.
✸ Steve Rogers (Captain America)
Some people consider him an introvert. There’s a real problem with lots of “typologists” out there. I don’t know what game they are playing, but it’s not about typing people. Rogers is an ESTJ (or maybe even ENTJ, so Tony-Steve would be P-J). He’s not afraid or self-conscious but basically eager and even proud to appear in public, to meet people, to give orders, etc. He’s not a loner, and most importantly, never oblivious or unrelated to the objective circumstances, but precisely the opposite: he’s all about what’s happening right now (in the war, etc). Rogers is a combat leader, and combat leaders are E[T]s. He isn’t very good at diplomacy (an EFJ wouldn’t miss award ceremonies), talking to women, or putting people at ease. That’s all T>F. He’s not phlegmatic or “behind the scenes”, but choleric, and definitely in charge. I think this is just too easy to see. You only need to stop for a while and avoid that stupid temptation (that many seem to have) to find all 16 types in every work of fiction ever written, or to assign [supposed] “complete reversals” to enemies and [apparent] rivals.
✸ Thor Odinson
The general idea behind him is that he’s basically a teenager, still not ready. He’s “trying to prove himself”, right? Ok, that’s something very EP. Thor is always out there, looking for things to do, not always on time, but eager to fight and take part. I think he’s not about abstractions but more about tangible realities, and in fact he seems to like traditions, celebrations, good food, etc. At first you might take for granted that he’s a T, but you won’t find him being actually rude, antagonistic, harsh, cold or fault-finding (at least that’s not the main image). It’s more about him being formal and/or “antiquated”, so I think ESFP (Prodigal/Bonvivant) works better than ESTP (Joker/Enterpriser). The thing is that they make him responsible and “mature” perhaps a bit too soon. That is: he almost doesn’t get to “act” as an EP, but more like a “semi-funny EJ”, making him quite inconsistent (for a change). In fact, I think that’s the main reason why I don’t find Thor interesting enough as a character. To me he is the one that most quickly becomes boring, because he’s too similar to the others, and he didn’t need to be.
✸ Loki Laufeyson
Loki is not Fe1. He’s very much alone in everything he does, he doesn’t share or embody the values of any group, and the only way he seems to get others to help or even listen to him is by paying or tricking them. He’s basically an egotist with a disproportionate sense of ambition, or perhaps not ambition but an imagined need to show that he can be “more/better” than others. I think that, in a sense, he’s just a tool for the writers to have someone “doing bad things”, not a truly “human-inspired” character. Others say he has a “silver tongue” (polite, persuasive, cunning), but that’s not ENFJ’s monopoly. Other types can speak cleverly, too. If I were to assign a type to Loki I’d say he is some kind of IJ, most likely an extreme/distorted form of INFJ. Fi1 can get to a point where the subject acts only for him/herself, with hidden motives, an air of superiority, ambition (usually NJ>SJ), vanity, and even cruelty. That’s what really matches Loki.
✸ Bruce Banner (The Hulk)
INTP? Hmm… yes, this one fits quite well. He’s a good example of someone who doesn’t want to get involved in things, he hides and lives alone, occupied with something that needs a nonlinear remedy, and in this case also separated from the current world-events (others are always searching for him), etc. The green side could be a symbol for INTPs’ secondary temperament (choleric).
✸ Natasha Romanoff (Black Widow)
This might be the most contradictory of the characters. She acts as secretary, spy and assassin, but at the same time, in several moments, she’s a mostly “classic” F-girl, showing delicacy and [what’s intended as] real affection, a way with words, etc. That doesn’t sound very ISTP, but she might work a bit better as ESTP, not only because that’s the actress’ type, but because her relationship with Rogers looks like Crossed (J/P, slightly similar to Frodo/Sam), and her friendship with Hawkeye also works for two Ghosts (E/I).
✸ Clint Barton (Hawkeye)
He is a bit contradictory, too, but not that much. Sometimes he seems cold and uninvolved, but then he’s all about his family, and he has a farm. He is similar but less obtrusive than Black Widow (they chat about house renovations, but then also: “You and I remember Budapest very differently”) and, in a way, he follows along, more or less at Banner’s level. He’s often scanning the situation and letting others do the judgment talk. Overall, I’d say he acts just as the typical reliable marksman: with him the focus is not on traumas, command, knowledge or “accomplishment abilities”, but on skills and the effort he puts on being useful to others. ISTP then.
✸ Wanda Maximoff (Scarlet Witch)
What’s most characteristic about her is that she has a definite inner intensity. She wants revenge, then she feels guilty, etc. The intention of the writers seems to be about her internal state and evolution, as if there was some kind of danger there. I think ISFJ is really appropriate for her. In a sense, she is the closest to Loki, both sharing different versions of what could be considered Fi1’s “hidden motives”. Loki extends them in all directions, and Wanda personalizes them. Also, her ability to read minds could be a fantasy representation of Te4’s projection and the person “feeling what others think”.
✸ And a few more ideas
I think Pepper Potts could be considered a very loyal Producer (SJ), and also a kind of curator who focuses on the heart more than the mind (F>T), so I’d say ISFJ works well for her. Odin could be an ENFJ. He looks more choleric than sanguine, more about [social] ideals than tangible conditions, always present but a bit detached, like a true global overseer, like an icon. And Nick Fury needs to be an ENTJ. There’s no way any other type can occupy such a blatant, demanding and confrontational post. Even his name is nearly synonymous with choleric.
teopz said: Have you seen The Midnight Gospel on Netflix? Would you agree that it may be a form/embodiment of Ni? The show was very captivating but listening to all the episodes in one sitting was hard to digest so I may watch it again.
Sorry :P I tried watching but it’s not the kind of thing that I like :/ I find that style of [“modern”] animation too trippy and just purely (even forcibly) random. I don’t get anything from it. In fact, at least in the case of similar series (I don’t know about this particular one), what I can’t help but notice are certain more or less veiled political statements (not a fan of those, either). (I like Over The Garden Wall, but that show isn’t really part of the current trend).
From what I’ve seen and read, The Midnight Gospel is about entering simulations, so it’s about Si (like The Matrix), not Se. That, in turn, makes it (potentially) about Ne, not Ni: alternate universes, imagined scenarios, etc. All sorts of possibilities, right? Also, the protagonist is a kind of reporter, which sounds very ENFP.
Animation in general always points more to Si than Se: it’s where you can distort and fabricate reality any way you want. In the context of video/film production, I guess you could say that the farther you divert from a non-cgi nature documentary, the farther you get from Se. It’s not that documentaries are about Ni, but when you push too much to one S side (Se or Si), you bring the connected N with you (Ni or Ne) and leave the other behind. I think this kind of intently unreal shows (Adventure Time, Rick And Morty, etc) are precisely a type of work that doesn’t include the slightest bit of Ni. Their own premises (the famous “anything is possible”, for example) are often against it. They could be examples of what I wrote in the 4th paragraph here.