Quotes just in case he change

 Clinton

Clinton:

Clinton:

Clinton: "[I would've liked to meet] Mark Twain. I would want to know what he believed and what was show."

Clinton: "My speechwriters must have been tearing their hair out, because as we practiced [my inaugural speech] between one and four in the morning on Inauguration Day, I was still changing it."

Bob Woodward: "Clinton ... had an unusually broad national network of political, media, and academic friends, and displayed an obvious fascination with ideas."

Steven J. Rubenzer: "He liked pondering ideas and theories."

Steven J. Rubenzer: "Clinton was very talkative, wordy, and verbose."

Bob Woodward: "Clinton would not fully commit to run. ... He set August as a personal deadline for a final decision, but the deadline slipped. Clinton had no campaign manager and not much organization. He appeared locked in a perpetual debate and argument with himself and with dozens of friends and advisers. His thinking never seemed to go in a straight line. He was unable to bring his deliberations to any resolution."

Bob Woodard: “He could 'correlate' various ideas and issues. In many respects, Clinton was well suited to the presidency. He had a superior, inquisitive mind, especially when compared to Reagan, and was capable of genuine vision, especially when compared to Bush. But the very discord or range of opinion that Clinton craved in making his decisions often got him bogged down. Bentsen once described Clinton as the 'meetingest' fellow he’d ever seen. The very fact [is] that he wanted debate. ... The war for Clinton’s soul, that great struggle over which ideas and approach to use to guide the nation, continued unabated."

Bob Woodward: "Paster was … amazed at Clinton’s willingness to allow these extended debates where they essentially talked to death the inevitable. Clinton was always trying to pick out a new course, move the debate or the policy slightly. The dynamic had a pattern. Clinton, unaccepting of the conventional wisdom, especially about Congress, would test the edges of what was possible, stretching the boundaries of the Washington and congressional playing field."

The Washington Post: "French President Francois Mitterrand and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl were quoted by aides as saying they could not believe Clinton wanted to affix his name to [his initiative]. Calling the plan 'novel, bizarre and unprecedented,' spokesman Jean Musitelli said Mitterrand judged it to be 'something like a UFO.'"

Haynes Johnson: "Clinton likes to quote Machiavelli."

Steven M. Gillon: "He enjoyed talking to everyone, but had a special affinity for reaching out to people who were different, or somehow out of the mainstream."

Walter Isaacson: "The combination of analytic and emotional intelligence that made him a great politician now makes him a compelling raconteur."

Steven J. Rubenzer: "[Bill Clinton and George Washington] are nearly opposite in their ... personalities."

Steven J. Rubenzer: "Clinton was much more prone to value openmindedness over devotions to principles and ideals."








Stefani

Stefani: “I’m into having a good time and entertaining people.”

Stefani: "Every night's different. You can't tell if it's gonna be a good show or a bad show. That's what's kind of exciting, I guess, about it. You never know, [you just] get up there [on stage] and see what happens."

Stefani: "No one can force me to do something unless I'm passionate about it."

Stefani: "I don't have a plan; it's been basically chasing dangling carrots everywhere I look.”

Stefani: “I always hate talking about fashion. … To me, fashion is something you don't talk about, it's something you do. [And something] you wear and you look at."

USA Today: "[She has] youthful enthusiasm [and] breathless energy."





Dana White

White: “I love doing things that people say can't be done.”

White: "The way I handle things [is] everything is on a case-by-case basis and [I'll] deal with stuff as it comes."

White: “I love to win.”


White: "I [continued the UFC during the pandemic because I] didn't get it, I couldn't wrap my head around the whole COVID thing. I was like, 'Wait a minute, if this thing is as bad as they're saying it is, we're all dead anyway. Are we going to hide from a fucking virus?' Come on, man. You could go into a restaurant with a mask on, sit down, take your fucking mask off, eat, and then put it back on? Just a lot of little fucking details like that don't make sense. ... We can't go to work but we can protest? We can all get together in a fucking protest but we can't go to work? I could poke fucking Swiss cheese holes in the whole fucking thing."

White: “When you come in here on a Tuesday night, you have to make me say, ‘I have to have this guy or girl in the UFC.' You can be as talented as they come [but] this is your one shot, your one night. This sheet [of your stats] is all I know about you, I don’t read any of this before I walk in. When the fights happen, I see it. You show me tonight who you are. None of this [on the sheet] means [bleep] to me. This [sheet] means nothing to me. It’s great [that] you’re obviously here, you’ve got great records, you’ve done great things [but] show me tonight. On Tuesdays, it’s your night to show me what you are and what you’ve got."

Rolling Stone: "He’s taken mixed martial arts, a sport that was essentially moribund seven years ago ... and turned it into a moneymaking, crowd-frazzling sensa­tion ... He accomplished this by using various business-savvy strata­gems and dodges. ... How he did it really is by the force of his own multifaceted personality. At 38, he is ... charming, ambitious, [and] cunning.”
 
Gregg Doyel: "He's charming, persistent, persuasive and magnetic.”
 
Chuck Mindenhall: "He doesn’t always tell the truth, but somehow — through audacity and red-faced guile — White keeps pushing this sport into bigger and broader realms ... and upping his own ante."

Trump: "There's nobody like this guy, I'm telling you. ... He could do anything. He is so smart, so tough, so cunning."

Lorenzo Fertitta: "[Getting into the UFC] I figured that if I went out and hired a Harvard MBA, we'd probably [go] out of business. ... [The reason I hired Dana White was because] we needed somebody that was street smart."

Lorenzo Fertitta: "Dana has no filter. ... Dana is all about saying exactly what's on his mind."

Lorenzo Fertitta: "Dana is a great promoter."






Hefner

Hefner: “The Hugh Hefner that is relatively not known to the public is an intensely romantic person and very sentimental.”

Hefner: “It's always been [the] romantic [aspects] that's really turned me. … And the remarkable thing, and for that I'm really grateful, [is that] I am as romantic a pushover today as I was when I was a kid, and I'm glad."

Hefner: “I was tremendously influenced by movies and by the romantic songs of the time, and I think that in a very real way I escaped into, in childhood, romantic dreams and fantasies as a kind of the equivalent of love. And I think most of my life has been a search and a quest for that perfect world that was described in the films and songs."

Rolling Stone: “For the past 18 months, I’ve been studying the guy, mostly up close and personal. … The Hugh Hefner I found is more interesting than [his image], more cautious, more human. He’s fragile, romantic and full of ideals. He has given his life for a cause.”

Hefner: "I withdrew into ... a lot of my own dreams and fantasies, and that's what led me to … the creative arts.”

Rolling Stone: “His metamorphosis into Mr. Playboy in 1962, for all its PR value to the magazine, was never just a self-serving effort. It was also an attempt to change American ideas about sexuality, a way to challenge the stigma of sexual freedom. When Hef took on his role, blending his political rhetoric with a promiscuous lifestyle, he was trying to challenge the idea that casual sex was immoral.”

Steven Watts: “He tended to be reserved in formal situations at school or home. ... Absorbed in his imagination, he often neglected his studies. ... In his early teenage years he continued drawing cartoon strips — eventually they would number about seventy different series — and to write and illustrate stories. ... Indeed, throughout childhood Hefner created vivid fantasy worlds in which he immersed himself, a trait that would prove to be lifelong. The boy who wouldn’t answer the telephone or venture alone to the dentist’s office a few streets away preferred to inhabit a reality he had created.”
 
Steven Watts: "[His mother] Grace was repeatedly struck by Hugh’s insular creativity. 'As a child, he found it very difficult to make new friends. When he was in school, he was a dreamer, and sort of lived his own life in his own mind,' she observed. 'I would ask him who some of his classmates were, and he wouldn’t know the names of very many of them. ... You couldn’t always tell what was making Hugh feel unhappy, because he was very much a loner,' a baffled Grace admitted. 'He always lived in a fantasy world.' ... Often shy and insecure with other people, the boy did not like venturing out. ... Even as a kid, noted [his brother Keith], Hugh wanted 'his world to stay exactly as he made it, and doesn’t want to go anywhere else where that isn’t the reality.'"







Joe Bden

Biden: "[A fundamental] part of being a public servant [is] absorbing the anger of people who don't know where to turn."

Biden: "I have found that [with] most people, candor generates trust. ... [This approach] has always worked for me."

Biden: "[Obama and I] kind of balance each other. ... [I am someone who will] hug [and] touch [people] ... whereas he is not emotive that way. That's why we make such a good team."

Bob Woodward: "Around the White House, Biden was known as 'the [Republican] whisperer': The person who knew the right combination of sympathy and gentleness - never force - needed to work with the minority."

The Atlantic: “Though plenty smart, Biden is not an intellectual. He makes few references to books and learned influences in his speeches and autobiography, and he displays little interest in theory. An indifferent student at the University of Delaware and Syracuse University College of Law—he describes the latter as 'boring'—Biden got by with prodigious cramming sessions. Today, by contrast, he is described by Tony Blinken, Biden’s national-security adviser, as a compulsive studier who likes to be overbriefed."

The Atlantic: “The guideposts in Biden’s political landscape are often not ideas, but people. Many of the world leaders with whom the United States has business are men and women he has known for years, even decades. In fall 2009, for example, after Obama had decided to abandon plans to build land-based missile defenses in eastern Europe—a move interpreted as a concession to Moscow—the White House sent Biden on a three-day swing through Poland, Romania, and the Czech Republic to reassure the leaders of those countries that their security would not be compromised. Biden had mastered the details of the issue—the virtues of sea-based anti-missile technology versus land-based, and so on—but his most important asset was that he knew many of the leaders personally.”

The Atlantic: “It’s clear that Biden feels he has the superior people skills—not that he puts it that way. He says the skill set he brings is ‘different,’ but it’s a difference he values, and one that he sees as part of his contribution to the administration. … ‘I’m a little more Irish. I’m more old-school.'"

The Atlantic: “In his personal life, Biden could hardly be more traditional. In the scruffy ’60s, when so many young men of his generation went unkempt as a social and political statement, Biden dressed up for class in college, sometimes wearing a tie. He says his first wife, Neilia, described him as ‘the most socially conservative man she had ever known.’”

Howard Fineman: “Biden is not an academic, he's not a theoretical thinker, he's a great street pol."




Jepsen

Jepsen: "Keep your eye on the ball and don't expect that the second record is gonna be at all like the first record, and don't expect what's happening today is necessarily gonna be happening tomorrow."

Jepsen: "The music industry is never going to be like a stagnant thing. It's always constantly evolving, and I think as an artist, what I look at is the challenge [of] figuring out how much you wanna morph around and change and be compatible with like the new stages of what kind of causes growth for your career."

Jepsen: "I don't overanalyze a song when I'm listening to it. ... I think everyone can feel when … it's like a slam dunk first listen. You don't need to go back and get used to it for it to be good."

Jepsen: "I love the way [Carly Simmons] writes, which is very ... to the point; there is not a lot of metaphor to it. But I think it's really relatable and honest. And I love her fashion sense. ... I think that there's something really beautiful about that honesty. But also, like a great jazz song, it doesn't need to be totally confusing for it to still be really potent. And I think that sometimes a really direct lyric can be just as powerful, if not more."

Jepsen: "I'm still kinda in my exploration stage with the red carpet, where I think at the beginning I felt like 'oh it has to be this very elegant, sophisticated thing,' and then I would find myself on the red carpet almost playing the part of like this person who I'm not. … And I realize more and more that for me, it's actually more important to find something I'm really comfortable in and that I still feel beautiful in, [and] that still feels very like me. ... It's kinda my decision to pick something that excites me."

Jepsen: "Before anyone had heard [my album] Emotion, I had to kind of figure out how I felt about it and let that be the truth. And then it landed for me as just something really honest that I felt passionate about. I was really proud of it and happy to share it, but I felt like whatever happens now could go either way. ... I just don't want to feel like it couldn't have gone the other way and that would have changed my feeling of it."

Jepsen: "I know some performers ... got like this stage idea, [but] I feel like I'm just myself, and I'm myself performing, and I'm myself at home. And obviously, you get to be a little bit more theatrical and over the top when you're on stage, but that's a very sincere part of my personality."

Jepsen: "If you saw even the background leading up to getting any success in Canada, it was a long, sort of treacherous hike. ... Even when it wasn't working, I had no intention of giving up. I'll be like, 'Well, this will still be a fun adventure to try forever.'"

Jepsen: "I wanna keep touring. I wanna keep making music that's always like a 'what album can I make next' kind of feeling. It's just in my blood for sure, but I have a whole list of goals. I'm really excited about getting to shift direction at some point into the Broadway world. I don't know what that looks like, but that's always been a dream of mine - to kind of redirect focus into theater. But right now, I'm just enjoying getting to tour and celebrate this album."

Allure Magazine: "Carly Rae Jepsen is a candy-coated pinball bouncing off the walls at a ballistic pace in a Chinatown beauty store, making 1,000 observations a minute. ... Her eyes, manga-sized, scan a row of sheet masks printed with animal faces. Will you be a dog, the packaging asks, or will you be a cat? Jepsen considers her options for half a millisecond before moving on to her next quest."






Will Smith

Smith: “I hate – refuse – to lose.”

Smith: “What I have that other people do not have is a … raw animal drive.”

Smith: “I have to be moving toward perfection. [I] don’t have to achieve it, but [I] do have to be moving toward it.”

Smith: “I’m [only] accommodating to people because I know even the slightest bump is going to be magnified tenfold.”

The Guardian: “[He has an] ability to charm his way out of any given situation.”

Smith: “I’m actually very good at being mean, very skilled at finding your weakest spot and ramming an ice pick into it. I’m a laser-guided, intergalactic, space-molecular, air-dispersing module for finding that particular bull’s eye. … But I can be deadly.”

Smith: "The things that have been most valuable to me I did not learn in school. Traditional education is based on facts and figures and passing tests - not on a comprehension of the material and its application to your life."

Smith: "[Don't] make a situation more complex than it has to be."

Reader's Digest: "[He is] a man who can never seem to slow down."

How it doesn't fit White: White's neglect of facts isn't driven by a subtle, unconscious push to prioritize these "sentiment-based images", in other words his disregard of facts is not specifically to give life to an internal world primarily shaped by personal sentiments and ideals. 

As I said, while some of White's actions might appear as a form of "freedom of action," his justifications for these actions aren't typically framed as an sentimental liberation from external constraints or a rejection of traditional values based on personal sentiment. 

In essence, White's disconnect from objective facts isn't fueled by a drive to realize a sentimentally rich inner world, nor are his actions primarily motivated by an emotional need to break free from external constraints. His "freedom of action," if it exists, likely originates from a different cognitive process than the feeling-based independence described by Jung's Fi.

Fictional ENTP traits: Fictional ENTPs tend to exhibit a cynical and often abrasive exterior, frequently employing wit and intellect to navigate a complex or flawed world. They may struggle with conventional morality or social norms, operating by their own code or a perceived higher understanding. This group generally embodies a cynical and highly intelligent demeanor, often questioning authority and societal norms. They possess sharp wit and a tendency towards unconventional problem-solving, frequently operating outside established rules. There's a underlying current of detachment, sometimes masking deeper vulnerabilities or a sense of disillusionment.

Fictional ENTJ traits: A driving ambition and a ruthless pursuit of power or a specific goal generally characterize ENTJs in fiction. They are often willing to make significant sacrifices, including those of others, to achieve their objectives, demonstrating a formidable and often intimidating presence. The individuals in this group are largely driven by ambition and a desire for control and power. They can be ruthless and calculating, often prioritizing their goals above the well-being of others. A strong will and a formidable presence are common threads, sometimes coupled with a sense of past grievance or a need for dominance.

Fictional INTJ traits: Fictional INTJs are often defined by their intense focus and intellectual prowess, sometimes to the exclusion of social or emotional considerations. Their pursuits can lead them down dark or morally ambiguous paths, driven by a deep-seated conviction or a perceived necessity. This group is characterized by intense focus, often bordering on obsession, particularly in the pursuit of knowledge, a specific goal, or a hidden agenda. They possess significant intellect and a capacity for complex planning, but their methods can be morally ambiguous or outright dark. There's a sense of being consumed by their internal world or overarching objectives.

Fictional INFP traits: A sense of displacement or a struggle with the norms of their environment is common within fictional INFPs. They may hold onto strong ideals or exhibit a vulnerability that sets them apart, sometimes leading to tragic or isolated circumstances. This group comprises individuals who often feel out of step with their surroundings or societal expectations. They may possess a deep sense of conviction that puts them at odds with the prevailing culture. There's a vulnerability and a potential for being easily overwhelmed or manipulated, yet they can also exhibit surprising resilience or a fierce adherence to their beliefs.

Fictional ESTJs: A diverse group, these individuals often possess strong convictions and can be quite assertive in their interactions. They may display a sense of a strong will that can come across as abrasive or uncompromising. While some may outwardly project confidence and control, others might grapple with internal turmoil or a struggle for dominance or acceptance. They can be driven by a clear set of beliefs, goal, rigid worldview and maintaining order, which can lead to conflict. While some exhibit a stern or controlling nature, others channel their intensity into fierce loyalty and a protective instinct towards those they care about.

Fictional ISTJs: A sense of reservedness, cautiousness, and a somewhat pragmatic approach to life are central to this group. They often value order, efficiency, and a degree of control over their environment or interactions. While they may not always openly display their emotions and appear on the surface stoic, formidable, or even detached, there is an underlying depth and a commitment to their responsibilities or personal codes, a strong sense of responsibility and a commitment to their values or those they protect. Knowledge and a no-nonsense attitude are frequently observed traits. 

Fictional ISFJ traits: Reliability, steadfastness, and a quiet competence are key traits in fictional ISFJs. They are often supportive, loyal, and grounded individuals who provide a sense of stability and reason to those around them. They often possess a nurturing quality and prioritize the well-being of others. Their impact is often felt through their steadfast support and unwavering dedication.

Fictional ESTP traits: Fictional ESTPs shares a tendency towards being highly adaptable, resourceful, and often charismatic. They navigate their circumstances with a blend of bravado, charm, and sometimes questionable methods, frequently operating in shades of gray. This is a highly dynamic and varied group, generally characterized by a sense of charm, adaptability, and a willingness to bend or break rules to achieve their desires. They often possess a certain roguishness or a flair for the dramatic. While some are driven by self-interest, others may operate with a more fluid morality, capable of both questionable actions and surprising moments of loyalty or genuine affection. There's a common thread of navigating the world through wit, manipulation, or sheer force of personality.

Fictional ISTP traits: Fictional ISTPs are characterized by a often solitary nature. They are highly capable individuals who operate independently and often possess specialized skills, operating effectively in dangerous or challenging environments. There's a sense of self-possession and a tendency towards independence, sometimes bordering on aloofness. They are often formidable in their respective areas and tend to be resourceful and resilient.

Fictional ESFP traits: Fictional ESFPs is generally marked by an enthusiastic, often naive, and sometimes chaotic approach to life. They tend to be driven by immediate impulses, emotions, or a desire for connection and excitement, often bringing a lively energy to their surroundings. This group is marked by their enthusiastic, often impulsive, and sometimes naive approach to life. They are generally cheerful, friendly, and enjoy connecting with others. While they may not always be the most strategic or intellectual, their optimism and genuine desire for fun and connection often see them through various situations. There's a strong sense of loyalty to friends and a tendency to embrace life's experiences with open arms.

Fictional ISFP traits: This group gives off a more grounded and perhaps introspective aura. While they may have moments of strong emotion or action, there's an underlying sense of thoughtfulness and a connection to their values or surroundings. They might navigate the world with a blend of resilience and a touch of idealism, often showing a capacity for deep care and loyalty. They "live and let live" and tend to go with the flow, not seeking to impose themselves onto other people.

Explain the general personality each group without going to the specifics of each character but also know the characters traits like just don't put them in the text:

1

 * Stéphane (The Science of Sleep)

 * Jonathan Larson (tick tock boom)

 * Anne Shirley

 * Hu Tao (Genshin Impact)

 * Nahida (Genshin Impact)

2

 * SpongeBob

 * Candace (genshin impact)

 * Leslie Knope

ESTJs can be similar to ENFPs who like to explore various intellectual insights and ideas (Ne) to bring about real-world change (Te) based on ideals and causes they believe in (Fi) but the ESTJ explores and experiments (Ne) in order to establish tried and true ways (Si) of managing and directing things (Te).

ISTJs are similar to INFPs who like to cultivate their inner passions, embracing what things personally mean to them (Fi) which are sustained and preserved (Si) in order to explore, ponder, and daydream the possibilities (Ne) related to their values but the ISTJ cultivates their inner ideals (Fi) as motivation to carry out their responsibilities in a diligent manner (Si-Te).

ENFJs are similar to ESTPs who like to come up with techniques (Ti) to socially navigate situations (Fe) in order to shrewdly adapt to, and in some cases leverage, the current ever-changing situation (Se) but the ENFJ observes the immediate situation or environment (Se) in order to bring about social change (Fe) based on their holistic insights (Ni) of humanity.

INFJs are similar to ISTPs who like to refine their perceptive insights (Ni) and essential principles (Ti) by testing out and demonstrate them in real-time via tangible results (Se) but the INFJ develops principles (Ti) in order to hold together an altogether more abstract vision fraught with personal meaning (Ni) and societal implications (Fe).

ESFJs are similar to ENTPs who like to critically dissect (Ti) various possibilities and insights (Ne) through discussing or debating them (Fe) but the ESFJ likes to explore various viewpoints and perspectives (Ne) in order to establish tried and true ways (Si) of aligning themselves and others on the basis of shared sentiments (Fe).

ISFJs are similar to INTPs who like to solidify (Si) their principles (Ti) through exploring various intellectual ideas and perspectives (Ne) but the ISFJ develops principles (Ti) in order to tend those they care about (Fe) dillegently and consistently (Si).

ISFPs are similar to INTJs who like to like to romanticize (Fi) their vision and symbolic insights (Ni) in order to bring and implement it to reality (Te) but the ISFP develops symbolic insights (Ni) in order to live their life in accordance to what they personally see as aesthetically beautiful in the moment (Fi-Se). 

ESFPs are similar to ENTJs who like to adapt to the current context (Se) in order to better manage resources and implement systems (Te) fueled by their big picture vision (Ni) but the ESFP leverages resources (Te) in order to live life to the fullest (Se) based on their inner passions and ideals (Fi). 

ESTJ vs ISTJ

1. Consciousness of Fi and Ne:

 * ESTJ (Te-Si-Ne-Fi): For ESTJs, Fi (Introverted Feeling) is their inferior function, residing in the unconscious. This means it's less developed, less readily accessible, and often experienced in less mature or integrated ways. Their Ne (Extraverted Intuition) is their tertiary function, making it semiconscious – they can access it, but it's not their primary mode of perceiving or exploring possibilities.

 * ISTJ (Si-Te-Fi-Ne): For ISTJs, Fi (Introverted Feeling) is their tertiary function, making it semiconscious. They have more conscious access to their values and personal feelings compared to an ESTJ. Their Ne (Extraverted Intuition) is their inferior function, residing in the unconscious, making them less comfortable with abstract possibilities and more focused on concrete realities.

2. Behavioral Manifestations of Fi:

 * ESTJ (Repressed Fi): With unconscious Fi, ESTJs are less likely to overtly express or prioritize individual values and subjective feelings in their decision-making. Their focus is primarily on objective logic (Te) and established facts/procedures (Si). This can manifest as a more directive and less "live and let live" approach, as their internal value considerations are less readily available to inform their external interactions. They might be more focused on enforcing external standards and what they see as logically correct.

 * ISTJ (Semiconscious Fi): With semiconscious Fi, ISTJs have a greater awareness of their internal values, even if they don't always express them openly. This can lead to a more internal sense of what is right and wrong, influencing their actions in a more "lead by example" way. They might be less inclined to impose their values on others as directly as an ESTJ, having a more internal respect for individual autonomy, even if it's not their primary focus.

3. Behavioral Manifestations of Te and Ne:

 * ESTJ (Dominant Te, Tertiary Ne): Their dominant Te drives them to organize and direct the external world efficiently. Their tertiary Ne, while less developed, can sometimes manifest as exploring possibilities in service of their Te goals, but it's often more concrete and less abstract than a dominant or auxiliary Ne user.

 * ISTJ (Auxiliary Te, Inferior Ne): Their auxiliary Te is used to organize and structure their internal world and apply logical reasoning to maintain stability and order based on their Si understanding. Their inferior Ne makes them less comfortable with ambiguity, abstract possibilities, and sudden changes.

Applying this to Rowling (based on the quotes):

Rowling's strong emphasis on detailed planning (Si) and a structured, logical approach to her writing (Te) aligns with both types. However, the quotes don't give us direct insight into her Fi or Ne usage.

 * To lean towards ISTJ: We would look for hints of a more internal, value-driven motivation (even if subtly expressed) and potentially a discomfort or less developed exploration of abstract possibilities or sudden plot changes in her process.

 * To lean towards ESTJ: We would look for indications of a more external, directive approach (if we had information about her interactions) and a less overt focus on personal values in her work process descriptions.

Conclusion on Differentiating:

Based only on the provided quotes, the strong presence of conscious Si and Te still makes STJ the likely broad type, but without further information hinting at the nuances of her Fi and Ne, the distinction between ISTJ and ESTJ remains challenging.

You've highlighted a crucial nuance in how Si types (specifically ISTJs in this context) navigate different perspectives compared to ESTJs, and how both relate to their repressed Ne and their level of Fi consciousness. You're right to point out that while Si's repressed Ne can hinder the consideration of diverse viewpoints, their more conscious Fi can offer a different pathway to understanding others.

Let's break down the difference in how Fi and Ne contribute to considering different perspectives:

Ne's Role in Considering Different Perspectives:

 * Exploring Possibilities: Ne's primary function is to generate multiple possibilities, connections, and interpretations. When considering a situation or idea, Ne readily branches out to explore various angles and potential viewpoints, even those that deviate from the established or obvious.

 * Understanding Alternatives: Ne naturally sees that there isn't just one "right" way or one "correct" fact. It understands that different contexts, values, and information can lead to different valid perspectives.

 * Intellectual Flexibility: Ne contributes to intellectual flexibility and open-mindedness by making it easier to entertain and consider viewpoints that might initially seem unconventional or contradictory.

Fi's Role in Considering Different Perspectives (Specifically in Contrast to Te):

 * Valuing Subjectivity: Fi's core is about understanding and valuing individual, subjective feelings and values. While it doesn't inherently generate multiple intellectual perspectives like Ne, it fosters an appreciation for the fact that different people have different internal compasses and priorities.

 * Empathy and Understanding of Values: A more conscious Fi (as in ISTJs compared to ESTJs) allows for a greater capacity to empathize with and understand why someone might hold a different value or make a different choice based on their internal framework, even if it doesn't align with the ISTJ's own.

 * Respect for Individual Autonomy: This understanding of diverse values can lead to a greater respect for individual autonomy and a reduced desire to impose one's own values onto others. The ISTJ's "lead by example" approach often stems from this internal respect.

The Difference in How They Lead to Considering Different Perspectives:

 * Ne (Cognitive Exploration): Ne considers different perspectives by intellectually exploring various possibilities and interpretations of information and situations. It's about seeing the different ways things could be and the different logical frameworks that could apply.

 * Fi (Value-Based Understanding): Fi considers different perspectives by understanding and valuing the different internal emotional landscapes and values that individuals possess. It's about recognizing why someone might prioritize different things based on their personal feelings and beliefs.

Why ISTJs Might Be Better Than ESTJs in This Specific Aspect:

Because ISTJs have more conscious Fi than ESTJs (tertiary vs. inferior), they have a greater inherent capacity to understand and respect the diversity of values that drive different perspectives. Even if their repressed Ne makes it harder for them to readily generate alternative viewpoints, their Fi can lead to a recognition that different people simply value different things, which can temper the Te-driven urge to impose a single "correct" standard.

ESTJs, with their repressed Fi, are less attuned to these subjective value differences. Their dominant Te is more focused on objective logic and external standards, making them more likely to see deviations from these standards as simply "wrong" rather than stemming from a different set of values. Their tertiary Ne might explore alternative logical approaches but is still often in service of their Te's objective conclusions.

In Conclusion:

Both Ne and Fi can contribute to considering different perspectives, but in distinct ways. Ne offers cognitive flexibility and the ability to see multiple intellectual interpretations, while Fi offers an appreciation for the diversity of individual values. Because ISTJs have more conscious Fi than ESTJs, they may have a better inherent capacity to understand and respect different perspectives rooted in differing values, even if their repressed Ne can sometimes limit their ability to readily see alternative intellectual viewpoints. This makes them potentially less inclined towards the absolutist stances that can sometimes characterize ESTJs.

Se vs Ne

"I'm not a planner. I don't like plans of any sort, so I believe in a true following of instinct, and that's a difficult thing to describe because it's not just doing what you want to do. That's not following your instinct. That's a very sort of impoverished idea of it, but really following your instinct in the sense that you keep yourself always open to possibilities, and when the possibilities come, you recognize them, and you go with them." - Helen Mirren (an ESTP)

"Each human individual should think as if he is the first on the earth; he is the Adam or the Eve. Then ... you can open to infinite possibilities. Then you will be vulnerable, available; and the more vulnerable you are, the more available you are, the greater the possibility of life happening to you. Your attitudes function like barriers; then life never reaches to you as it is [because] it [would have] to fit your philosophy, religion, ideology, and in that very fitting, something dies in it. What you get out of it is a corpse: it may look like life but it is not." - Osho (an ENFP)

As IDRlabs has said, "Ne and Se can resemble each other insofar as they are both adaptive, novelty-seeking and on the lookout for possibilities in the external situation." One can often mistake Se types for Ne types, especially if the Se type in question uses the term "possibilities." So one may ask what is the difference when an Se user says something along the lines of being "open to possibilities"? Is it just as simple as the possibilities being of a more grounded/physical nature? Well let's find out.

When Se types (SPs) uses the term "possibilities" they primarily mean options and variations that exist within the current situation. The key mental operation is receptive awareness and responsiveness. They are attuned to the opportunities and paths that become apparent in the immediate context – whether it's a social interaction, a creative task with set boundaries (like a script), or sensory information. They excel at skillfully navigating and utilizing the potential that is already present.

Ne types (NPs) by contrast see "possibilities" as something that can be generated, discovered, or accessed by actively changing perspectives, questioning assumptions, and reinterpreting the existing situation. Their key mental operation is cognitive reframing and active construction. They focus on altering their understanding, letting go of limitations, and actively seeking out new, often intellectual, areas to create or unlock potential that isn't immediately obvious or defined within current boundaries. As beautifully illustrated by Terry Gilliam:

Terry Gilliam: "2001 had an ending that I don’t know what it means. I don’t know, but I have to think about it. I have to work, and it opens up all sorts of possibilities, and probably the next person I speak to has a different idea of what that ending means. So suddenly, we’re in a discussion, and now we’re talking. Ideas come out of that, and that’s what I always want to encourage.”

Ne aims to go beyond the perceived limitations of the current reality or understanding. As Myers has said regarding N types, they “regard the immediate situation as a prison from which escape is urgently necessary.”

In other words, Se is more oriented towards perceiving and working fluidly with the "possibilities" inherent in the current situation, while Ne focuses on transcending the current situation (or the conventional interpretations and ideas of the time) to actively generate or access new realms of possibility. 

To further showcase what I mean regarding Se vs Ne, take this quote from Madonna (an ESTP):

Madonna: "You can be open and observant in any situation. I mean, in a work situation, watching people on a set of a movie or whatever. ... There are endless possibilities of ways to absorb the information."

By contrast here is a quote from Jack White (an ENFP):

White: "When I was growing up, they didn't know it was the blues. I didn't know it was the blues, you know. It took me until I was, like, 20-something years old before I realized, 'Wow, that's exactly what these rappers are saying, exactly what Blind Willie McTell said, it was exactly what Blind Lemon Jefferson was saying.' These are the same stories of struggle and pain and love and violence that we've been hearing for a long time. So once you let your brain understand that and click into that, it opens up a whole range of possibilities of what the blues can be, and then you just can't help but fall in love with ... all aspects of the Blues." (Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzZWjY4tb4Q)

As shown, Madonna's quote emphasizes being "open and observant in any situation" and seeing "endless possibilities of ways to absorb the information." Showcasing how Se users find potential within the concrete and immediate circumstances. She's not transcending the situation as much as noticing the various ways to engage with and learn from what's happening right in front of her.

By contrast Jack White's quote illustrates how realizing the connection between the blues and rap "opens up a whole range of possibilities of what the blues can be" demonstrating Ne's ability to see connections between seemingly different things, leading to new and broader understandings and potential avenues (in this case, for musical exploration). He's not just working with the existing definition of blues; he's expanding it through an assoicative connection.

From this perspective one can say that Se and Ne are very similar, just that Se deals more with actuality whereas Ne "skips over" what's presented (mentally leaving the original stuff behind) via conceptual association, hence why Ne (or just N types in general) have a knack for referencing things don't seem like they directly pertain to the immediate context or topic at hand. As Ignacio Ramonet said of Fidel Castro (an ENFP):

"His thoughts branch, [to him] everything is connected to everything, and the branches form long chains of links. The pursuit of a subject leads him, through an association of ideas, through the recollection of such-and-such a situation or person, to call up a parallel subject, and another, and another, and another, until we are far from the central issue – so far that the interlocutor fears, for a moment, that he's lost the thread."

Now with all that being said, does this mean that Se users are limited to the actual occurrence or that Ne users are incapable of shifting their focus on inherent situation? No, functions are about habitual and instinctual preferences (our "why" of our philosophical worldview and not the "what") but it does not say anything about one's ability. As Jung said of ESPs, Se can and will conceptualize (N), but it's moreso for the sake of enhancing Sensation. So in other words, while one can find Se types that seem to have these off-the-wall ideas, if one digs deeper one can find that these abstractions are really in service for Sensation rather than the other way around:

Tyler the Creator: "[I like] making what feels good! Right now I'm into the color match-up of purple and baby blue, and I know I'll be over it in the coming months, but as of right now it just looks good in my eyes."

By contrast the inverse is true of Ne (or N types in general) with that being sensation is in service for Ne. The Ne type may not even notice it themselves but, all else being equal, objects for Ne types instinctually are starting points from which they can mentally spring off. As van der Hoop as said, a fact is only valued if it contains, to the Ne users eyes, something beyond it. For illustration:

Jack White: "It would have been lame for the White Stripes to use the color red because it looked cool, you know, it has to have meaning behind it, it has to come from someplace that has a deeper story so that if you dug into it you could go deeper and deeper with it, so image for the sake of image is no good. I think that's sort of dead art, but if it has meaning from the get-go things will make themselves, you know, like what we're doing now has a lot of these icy blues and pale blues of the stage production that we have and the artwork for the album, and those came from a pale blue guitar that I had used in an old public school amplifier I was using during the recording; those blues in there exemplified themselves throughout all of that, and if people want to dig deeper into those colors, they can, instead of it just being something [like] 'they put a purple light on me because it looked cool, it doesn't have any meaning to it at all, just purple.' It'd be better if it meant something, I think." (Source; https://youtu.be/9rpIF_U_QLY?feature=shared&t=148)

Of course in the context of art one shouldn't expect an Se types art to be devoid of "read into it" meaning or that an Ne types are are devoid of visual/auditory merit. Any type (if given the resources and time) and create anything, what type measures is one's, as Boye Akinwande put it, "conscious attention (and inattention) that an individual directs towards the contents of consciousness. According to the psychodynamic approach, the functions exist as meta-perspectives that, in theory, are divorced from psychic contents. Rather, they operate as lenses that fundamentally bias the way we conceive of, structure, and relate to information in the psyche." Plus one's judging functions play a role in that too as it can make the Se and Ne type's creations devaite from what is generally expected of them.

So to summarize, Se focuses on the ever-changing "what is" and explores it's inherent variations while Ne moves away from "what is" in an effort to imagine "what could be" by making abstract associations. Se is about fluidly engaging with the "givens" while Ne is about transcending it through conceptual leaps.

Regarding Fe:

Smith: “When you're choosing your work and you're choosing the material that you're putting into the world, you have to understand that somebody else's kids are going to see that. Somebody's grandmother is going to see it. Are they going to be better or worse after they have contact with your material?"

Smith: “The kids that are making these trends, making these songs, don't understand the level of effect that black Americans have around the world. Black Americans are so elevated, it's almost worship. I was asking the kids: What is it about Tupac? Why is that there? I kept asking why. They were saying we want to dress like you dress, wear all the things you wear, talk how you talk. The impression is that black Americans are the dragon slayers. Here we are 13 percent minority in a foreign land, and yet we can make laws, change laws. If Jesse Jackson shows up at Coca-Cola, something changes. It's real important to have balance of the imagery. Yes, there are people who fire guns in the street, but there's also doctors who go to work in those areas to feed their children. That's the image of survivors. The dude that sells the drugs or has the guns or is most willing to kill somebody is the dude that has the greatest potential for survival, or at least that's the perception. So that's what people strive for. What I'm trying to present and what a lot of other artists are presenting is a different approach to survival and a more sound approach to survival. It's a more long-term approach based on intellect and skills that can't be taken away from you: The smartest dude survives the best.”

Smith: “When I see this list and series of nominations that come out, and everybody is fantastic and that’s the complexity of this issue — everyone is beautiful and deserving and it’s fantastic — but it feels like it’s going the wrong direction. ... This is so deeply not about me, this is about children that are gonna sit down and they’re going to watch this show, and they’re not going to see themselves represented. ... we’re a part of this community, but at this current time, we’re uncomfortable to stand there and say that this is OK.”

Side notes:

Another thing to note, as Boye Akinwande has said regarding Fe, "Starting with people as their cognitive nexus, and seeing people as the carriers of principles and values, the Fe type may at times be too beholden to the feedback and opinions of the people they encounter." By contrast, Fi, according to Akinwande, "[due] reacting to the impressions of objects in their own subjective way, they can be allowed to follow their own subjective passions in a sympathetic fashion that exists in a parallel dimension from what is actually possible." Will Smith fits the former whereas his son Jaden Smith seems to fit the latter (Obviously this is an extreme example on Jaden Smith's part but hopefully it is a pointer towards what I mean):

Smith: “Where [me and Jaden are] not alike is [that] Jaden … is fearless in his pursuit of his individuality. I was certainly not like that. … At his age, I was easily injured by people's opinions.”

Lastly, I would add that, for majority of his career, (blank) came first, with self-expression taking a back seat, rather than the other way around:

Smith: “I like to rap about things that everyone can relate to, no color barrier, no age barrier, no financial barrier.”

Overall, his values are more external and mediated between people than internal and an island to itself rather, so to speak.






"When I started making music back in Philly at 12 years old, it was always a big thing in my family that whatever you do, first off, you have to serve God. And then, if you serve God properly, then you can serve your community. So, the idea of service has always been ingrained and connected to the idea of success. So, if you win, you've got to share it." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI4v1Cyumu4&list=PLlwrSZTNQcjLyJfDOs5gZHxpST31GuN4n&index=35)

"The most important thing [for my kids] is that they have to stay focused and grounded on the fact that they are giving. You don’t make movies for your ego. You make movies to transfer information, to bring joy, to add value to the world.” (https://www.justjared.com/2013/05/27/will-jaden-smith-after-earth-russia-photo-call/)


Fe is largely outer-focused (interpersonal) and Fi is largely inner-focused (intrapersonal).






















An Fe type is more likely to set up an objective target, i.e. "With regard to Feeling, you are *here*, and instead, you should be *here*." Her scolding is an indication of this. Neither case is really about her personally. An Fi type may be just as disturbed by negative emotion in someone else as an Fe type, but they are less likely to handle the situation by pointing out the impropriety of someone's behavior.

The fact is, he sets up an objective Feeling target and triangulates between himself, Cobb, and the target, i.e. "Based on what we understand to be right, this is where you need to be cognitively with regard to Feeling," as opposed to a subjective Feeling target: "Based on what I understand to be right, you're trying to warp what I understand to be right, and I don't want you to do that."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So after all the evidence of Smith being more Fe than Fi I will now shift my attention more on Te vs Ti, I'll first start off with what you said about the differences between Te and Ti:

 

“Ti judges on the basis of internal, ‘subjective’ ideas. For example, in explaining the success of the iPhone, Ti will more naturally stress the 'internal' aspects of its success such as the iPhone being associated with a certain lifestyle, with its owner being thought to have certain values (such as ingenuity and individuality), and the owner generally being 'ahead of the curve' with regards to social trends. By contrast, the Te function is more likely to stress external parameters, such as the iPhone being amongst the first phones to introduce a touchscreen and Apple’s distinct brand of aesthetics. … Here [Ti is] ultimately concerned with an internal idea that does not directly pertain to the object (in this case the phone). So Ti will seize upon the internal idea in explaining the success of the iPhone (e.g. that it invokes a certain image) and neglect or coerce external facts that might explain the success (e.g. that its screen was better than that of any competing product at the time).”

 

 

 

Smith: "I was in Russia ... one of the reporters tried to kiss me, and I slapped him ... so I get back, I'm pissed like that somebody think [that just] cuz you famous, they get to do whatever they want to do to you. So I'm in my room, and I have ten urgent messages from Jay-Z, right ... he's like, "Call me now!" with exclamation points ... and he sounds winded. He's like ... 'Hey, I just saw the video of you slapping to do it Russia,' he said. 'Just want you to know you'll never make a better piece of entertainment. It's the funniest thing I've ever seen,' he said. 'Me and B, we got a show tonight, and we thinking about canceling it and just staying in and watching you slap this dude.' ...  We talked about it after, he was like 'it was such a breath of fresh air to see you just be authentic' ... I thought that it would be negative and everything. And in this new, yeah, social media world, it actually, the authenticity was accepted and respected, and ... that was a new thing for me."

 

 

 

He's trying to understand the underlying principle at play in this new social media landscape, where seemingly negative actions can be positively received if they are perceived as genuine or "authentic." This internal understanding of a principle guiding external reactions is characteristic of Ti.

 

While he acknowledges the external facts (Jay-Z's call, the positive reception), his explanation prioritizes the internal interpretation of why these facts occurred. He's not dissecting the specific mechanics of social media algorithms or quantifiable data points that led to the positive response.

 

A Te perspective might focus more on the concrete, observable outcomes. For example, a Te explanation might emphasize the increased media attention, the boost in his perceived "realness" in the eyes of the public (which could translate to tangible benefits), or the specific ways in which the video went viral. Smith's explanation is more about the underlying principle of authenticity being valued.

Yes, based on the analysis, Smith's explanation leaned towards prioritizing his subjective idea of the principle of "authenticity" over a detailed analysis of the objective facts of the social media response.

What does "subjective" mean in this context?

In the context of Ti (Introverted Thinking), "subjective" doesn't mean arbitrary or based on feelings. Instead, it refers to ideas, principles, and logical frameworks that originate from within the individual's own mind. These are internal constructs developed through personal analysis, reasoning, and understanding of how things work. While Ti strives for internal consistency and logical accuracy, these frameworks are built from the individual's unique perspective and may not perfectly align with external consensus or objective data.

Explaining Ti Based on the Description and Examples:

Ti, as described, is a cognitive function that judges based on internal, "subjective" ideas. It is concerned with the internal logic, consistency, and principles that an individual develops to understand the world. Facts, from a Ti perspective, are often seen as evidence or proof that supports an already existing internal understanding or idea. Ti users tend to build their own mental frameworks and then look for how external reality fits into these frameworks.

Let's examine the quotes in light of this understanding of Ti:

 * Patton: "If everybody is thinking the same thing, then somebody isn't thinking." This highlights Ti's value for independent thought and questioning the status quo. The "fact" of widespread agreement is seen as proof that individual, internal analysis might be lacking.

 * Kennedy: "All my life I've known better than to depend on the experts." This reflects Ti's tendency to trust its own internal reasoning and judgment over external authority or expert opinion. The "fact" of expert consensus is less important than his own subjective evaluation.

 * Roosevelt: "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena." This emphasizes the value of direct experience and action over detached observation or criticism. The "facts" of failure or imperfection are less significant than the internal principle of daring and engaging with the world.

 * Roosevelt: "[Even] if [the Man of Action] fails, at least [he] fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." This reinforces the internal principle of valuing courage and action, even in the face of potential failure. The "fact" of failure becomes proof of having lived according to this principle, which is seen as superior to inaction.

 * Churchill: "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." This reframes the "fact" of having enemies as proof of adhering to one's own principles and beliefs. The external reality is interpreted through an internal value system.

 * Jackson: "It is a damn poor mind indeed which can't think of at least two ways to spell any word." This demonstrates Ti's comfort with multiple perspectives and its rejection of rigid, external rules. The "fact" of a single correct spelling is challenged by the internal idea of mental flexibility and the ability to approach things in different ways.

 * Johnson: "Believe in the argument you're advancing. If you don't ... the other person will sense that something isn't there, and no [amount] of reasoning ... will win your case for you." This highlights the importance of internal conviction and belief in one's own logic. The "facts" and reasoning presented are less impactful if the underlying internal belief is absent.

 * Malcolm X: "I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it's for or against." This emphasizes a commitment to internal principles of truth and justice, regardless of external sources or biases. Facts are evaluated based on their alignment with these internal principles.

 * Malcolm X: "The mental flexibility of the wise man permits him to keep an open mind and enables him to readjust himself whenever it becomes necessary for a change." This reinforces the Ti value of internal adaptability and the willingness to revise one's internal frameworks based on new information or insights. Facts can prompt a re-evaluation of internal understanding.

 * Edison: "Restlessness is discontent - and discontent is the first necessity of progress. Show me a thoroughly satisfied man, and I will show you a failure." This frames the "fact" of discontent as a positive indicator of internal drive and a necessary precursor to progress. It's an internal principle that shapes the interpretation of an external state.

 * Edison: "Everything comes to him who hustles while he waits." This suggests an internal principle of proactive effort combined with patience. The "facts" of success are linked to this internal approach of actively working towards a goal while also understanding the element of time.

In summary, all these quotes illustrate how individuals with a strong Ti preference tend to operate from a foundation of internally developed principles and logical frameworks. They often view external facts as evidence that either supports or challenges these internal understandings, and they are more driven by their own subjective reasoning than by simply accepting external information at face value. They seek to understand the "why" behind the "what" based on their own internal logic.

 

So after all the evidence of Smith being more Fe than Fi I will now shift my attention more on Te vs Ti. Per Jung: "[What] is of absolutely paramount importance [to Ti] is the ... subjective idea ... standing ... darkly before the inner vision. Its aim ... [is concerned with] the shaping of that dim image into a resplendent idea." Here is a quote from Will Smith that I think very much fits what Jung says regarding Ti:

Smith: “I have to be moving toward perfection. [I] don’t have to achieve it, but [I] do have to be moving toward it.”
Smith: “I have to be moving toward perfection. [I] don’t have to achieve it, but [I] do have to be moving toward it.”

Here are some other quotes that could indicate that Smith is not as F as meets the eye:

Smith: "[What] always would make me angry [is for someone] to not have any real ... logical base for what [they're] saying."

While Will Smith has some traits one wouldn't typically expect from an ESTP, the ESTP function stack makes more sense than the ESFP one. If you feel that the idea of Will Smith being a ESTP seems far-fetched, I would like to add that Will Smith "seems" much more ESTP than Meryl Streep "seeming" ESTP, Elizabeth Olsen "seeming" ENTP, Charlotte Gainsbourg "seeming" INTP, Taylor Swift "seeming" ISTP, etc. So if those typings exist on your site then Will Smith being ESTP should not be considered that far of a stretch.

 

 

 

“I’m never complacent. With me it will never be ‘This is where we’re going.’ It’s ‘This is where we are now, but we’re going somewhere else.’”

“My movie career is as serious to me as playing chess or golf. I want to do things well. I can’t function if I’m not excelling.”


While Smith recounts factual events, they serve primarily as examples to illustrate an internal understanding.