Could some of the ENTJ voters please explain their reasoning in regard to their typing? I don't think it's impossible, just find the reasonings here lacking severely. For what I know, I don't think he fits Te-dom. As IDRlabs said of Te (in which they were just reiterating Jung), "As Jung says, Te likes to put everything on a formula, and then follow that formula. Te likes structure, fixed standards, and set procedures."

From that POV, why ENTJ for London? He wasn't someone seeking to bring his environment into a systematically ordered state with the aid of accepted theories and data. Rather he seems like a Pe-dominant type, no? He was much more of a chaotic, horizon-chasing adventurer. Yes, ENTJs can be opportunistic and seek new horizons (due to ambitions) but their cognition is rarely rooted in experience as an end in itself but rather, as IDRlabs puts it, "as parameters to be synthesized into concepts, procedures and – you guessed it – standards." 

Think Napoleon, Bill Gates, Alexander Hamilton or Aristotle with regard to Te-Ni. Napoleon rewritten European law codes; Hamilton built an entire national financial architecture; Bill Gates structured the computing world; Aristotle categorized all human knowledge. Their "formulas" were grand, macro-level systems meant to govern and standardize the external world. Jack London's 1,000-words-a-day rule, by contrast, wasn't a macro-organizational system. It was a brute-force habit he forced on himself so he could fund his real passion: living. He wrote to pay off his massive debts from ranching, buying yachts, and traveling. For him, the formula was a mechanical chore to sustain his freedom.

Kerry

 https://time.com/archive/6739072/inside-the-mind-of-john-kerry/

He is studious, thorough and engaged when making policy decisions. He is independent to the point of being something of a loner.

Kerry is a very proper Bostonian. His apparent aloofness is actually an antique form of New England propriety. ... Part of [his] ethos ... is his formal, hortatory Sunday-sermon speaking style. A strong sense of honor comes with the territory.

Military honor certainly accounts for some of Kerry’s overactive sense of propriety, though not all of it. “The reticence, or whatever, came from both our parents but from my mother most of all,” Kerry’s younger brother Cameron told me a few weeks ago. “She was vehement about civic duty and personal correctness. Once, when I started talking about winning a ski race, she said to me, ‘Shrink it down’–meaning my head. That was one of her expressions. ... He never rebelled against what Mom taught us.” ... Kerry didn’t rebel all that much against his father either. Richard Kerry was a career foreign-service officer who saw public service as a priestly calling. He was vehement in his beliefs, a foreign policy realist who disliked U.S. attempts to remake the world (and disagreed with his son’s decision to go to Vietnam). Family discussions around the dinner table were dead serious and high-minded; irony doesn’t seem to be a Kerry family specialty.

“It is sort of like dealing with Averell Harriman or one of the wise men,” says former Kerry speechwriter Andrei Cherny, speaking of the Brahmins who dominated U.S. foreign policy after World War II. “On policy issues, he will grill his advisers in a way that seems a throwback: What will this mean for America 10 years down the road? How will it affect the global economy? It made me feel good to be working for someone that serious.”

His mother’s civic propriety and his father’s diplomatic propriety are a crushingly noble legacy. They haunt his every move. ... He starts a campaign trying to do the right thing, but successful politics requires all sorts of creative roguery. His sense of civic propriety limits his ability to act ruthlessly (firing his campaign manager, for example) or flamboyantly (giving an entertaining, personal, red-meat stump speech). Kerry’s sense of policy propriety renders his attempts at political expediency–the promises and compromises necessary to woo constituencies–tortured and unconvincing. He writhes about, descends into rhetorical abstractions, spends too much time thinking about what he is doing wrong and comes across as distanced, distracted, aloof. A perfect phony.

The problem may have been that the ghost of that old idealism-averse Richard Kerry was sitting on his shoulder, whispering tsk-tsk-tsk. Before making up his mind, Kerry had done his usual high-minded wise-man process. He asked his staff for detailed information, grilled them on it, consulted with a legion of foreign policy Pooh-Bahs–almost always keeping his own counsel, never tipping his hand. Jonathan Winer, a former Kerry staff member, says the policy process usually involves a political component: “He always asks, ‘Who else likes it?’ ‘Who doesn’t?’ ‘Why don’t they?’ ‘Why haven’t we addressed that argument?’ And when all those questions are answered, he goes off and makes his decision.”

“John’s judgment when it comes to the substance of policy is excellent,” Biden told me. “We’re usually in agreement. We don’t even have to talk about it much. The truth is, he usually spends more time talking about the politics of a vote–at least he does with me–and that was certainly the case on the $87 billion. That told me this: John doesn’t have as much confidence in his political judgment as he does in his policy decisions.”

It is a surpassing American oddity that a proper Bostonian who seems so profoundly uncomfortable with the rude ceremonies of the public square can transform himself into a sleek political warrior, eager for the havoc of pitched battle.

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/defining-john-kerry/tnamp/

Kerry: "Labels are too simple, particularly if you try to be thoughtful."

Kerry quotes French writer André Gide: "Don't try to understand me too quickly." The line reflects a passion of his: not fitting into a box. Kerry can switch from crusading, reformist liberal to New Democrat and back again.

Kerry is a sharp-minded fellow who speaks in full sentences and paragraphs. He has good hair and is tall. He could play himself in a movie–though his long, sad-dog face has developed deep vertical lines. He has more charisma than the average senator, but not much charm. He has never been accused of being a politician who easily bonds with others. He doesn't do small talk. For much of his career, he was not into the grunt work of politicking.

There's Kerry the dispassionate policy advocate who can appear more intrigued with issues than with making contact. His politics bounce between the two. He assails the flow of private money into campaigns; he sides with portions of the corporate political agenda. He hews to the liberal line on universal healthcare and increasing wages, but he has displayed more interest in the subject of international crime–hardly an unimportant topic, but one that does not stir many souls. Does that indicate he's a shrewd calculator looking to establish a unique political niche, or a detached Democrat who is sometimes unengaged by his party's traditional fights, or an intellectually curious person who pays attention to serious stuff ignored by others? He's long been rapped for being overly ambitious.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna5453362

He is the politician who speaks of core principles yet is known for his cautious pragmatism.

“Have you had a beer with me yet?” Kerry protested when a local reporter once asked about his reputation for aloofness. “I like to have fun as much as the next person, and go out and hack around and have a good time.” What would someone learn about him if they did go out for that beer, he is asked later. “You just have to do it,” he insists. “You just have to have fun, let your hair down, relax, laugh, kick some jokes around, have a good time — talk about something other than this.” Kerry’s daughter Alex, 30, says her father sometimes can get so focused that it “precludes having a lackadaisical moment.” But she says he can be witty and silly, even goofy, in more relaxed settings. He’s quick with a sarcastic jibe and skilled at mimicking accents, she says, but careful not to do so when someone might take offense. His younger daughter, Vanessa, 27, offers four words to sum up her father: dedicated, curious, intelligent, playful. “I like playful above all,” Kerry says, when offered his daughter’s list.

“I am very well aware that when God made me, one of the debits he gave was a sort of over-level of intensity, maybe an over-level of earnestness,” he said. “I don’t sort of wear every part of me on my sleeve as easily as some people do, and I know that. On the other hand, what I do know about myself is that when you have a fight, I am a good person to be in a foxhole with.”

Cameron Kerry says he saw the “deeply emotional, sentimental side” of his brother as John helped care for their parents in their dying days. ... “Other people were there to care for them, but he jumped into it and helped care very tenderly for them,” Cameron Kerry recalls.

“John has always been able to do an override on the emotions,” Muller said, “to be pragmatic and to be effective.” ... As a politician, says Muller, “He does have those passionate values and concerns, but at the same time he’s a tactician.” 

Kerry is known for his energy and curiosity — he’s joked that maybe his mother gave him a “permanent dose of hyperactivity.”

Kerry also has a hunger for sport — be it hockey, skiing, biking, “silly things like roofball,” windsurfing or, most recently, kiteboarding. His idea of relaxation usually involves producing adrenaline. “These board sports have taken over his life,” sighs Alex Kerry. Says her father, “I call it hacking around. ... It’s an important part of just sort of being free.” Not one to sit still, Kerry tosses around a football on the airport tarmac during campaign stops, or commandeers a motorcycle from one of the police officers on duty. During a 1991 visit to Israel, the senator, who trained as a pilot in his college days, persuaded an Israeli colonel to take him up in an Air Force jet and to let him take the controls and do “a little aerobatics.” “So I went up to 12,000 feet and proceeded to go in and do a loop,” Kerry recounted recently. Not standard fare for a congressional fact-finding tour.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-kerry-teen-outcast/

https://time.com/archive/6738924/the-making-of-john-kerry/

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/kerry/youth.html

https://albertmohler.com/2004/07/28/who-is-senator-john-kerry-its-time-to-take-a-closer-look/

https://www.cjr.org/politics/kerry_beauty_and_the_beast.php

ht

tps://www.gq.com/story/john-kerry-presidential-election-iowa

Philippe Jaroussky

 "I like very much to sing just with a piano. It’s just a meeting between two musicians. It’s my opportunity to express myself directly in my own language. In baroque arias I have not a lot of things to express. This is really my secret garden. I can really express and feel deeply each word of each poem. It’s something special for me."

"The voice, it’s very personal. When I was a violinist or a pianist I could hide myself behind the instrument. You cannot do that with the voice. Its so direct. It’s a direct reflection of your personality and that’s why people like singers. It’s just your voice. You cannot lie. When I started to sing I had this feeling of being completely naked."

"For me, all these things about mechanism are not the most important thing for me. I try to keep the natural sound of my voice, and to sing with as much freedom as I can. But I don’t ask myself about the different mechanisms you can use. [I try] to keep the truth of what I want to do."

"In a concert you are to be yourself."

"Falsetto for me is a terrible word. ... I don’t like that expression. It sounds like something artificial. For me, I’m singing head voice, like a soprano or mezzo-soprano. You don’t say a soprano is singing in falsetto."

"In singing French repertory, particularly this one, I am showing more my own personality. Who I am really."

"Sometimes when I’m conducting artistically, I realize that I was speaking much more through the violin. It’s a part of my history. A lot of my idea about articulation and phrasing come from the violin, because it’s natural for me."

"[I] want to keep something of our childhood, the pure innocence. As a countertenor, I have the feeling of finding something which is not touched by life. It’s something special."

"I have an obsession with not over-playing things, because I think if you’re emotionally authentic then you’ll connect with the audience naturally."

"As a teenager I was always playing Mahler, Stravinsky and Shostakovich very loudly in my room, as well as techno and metal. I didn’t really draw a distinction between them - I was just sitting there in the dark, feeling the vibes!"

"You have to enjoy each moment."

 Ryder's Sensing seems to be based around habit rather than around improvisation and fresh experiences (Si over Se). She continually returns to the same island to collect shells, has a well-formed idea of the market value of each, and has memorized all the good hiding spots, all in addition to the most important point: her daily study of the encyclopedia (in alphabetical order!), which seems like something an ISFP would detest.

IDRlabs

Jung’s Portrait of the ENFP / ENTP Types

admin admin

15 years ago

Jung did not distinguish between the ENFP and ENTP types. Instead he focused on what was common to these two types as both were dominated by Extroverted iNtuition (Ne). Jung has been noted by many to be a forbidding and inaccessible writer and reading him is indeed difficult.

Jung’s Portrait of the ENFP / ENTP Types

by Carl Gustav Jung, first published 1921

Extroverted iNtuition (Ne) in general

Intuition as the function of unconscious perception is wholly directed upon outer objects in the extraverted attitude. Because, in the main, intuition is an unconscious process, the conscious apprehension of its nature is a very difficult matter. In consciousness, the intuitive function is represented by a certain attitude of expectation, a perceptive and penetrating vision, wherein only the subsequent result can prove, in every case, how much was ‘perceived-into’, and how much actually lay in the object.

Just as sensation, when given the priority, is not a mere reactive process of no further importance for the object, but is almost an action which seizes and shapes the object, so it is with intuition, which is by no means a mere perception, or awareness, but an active, creative process that builds into the object just as much as it takes out. But, because this process extracts the perception unconsciously, it also produces an unconscious effect in the object. The primary function of intuition is to transmit mere images, or perceptions of relations and conditions, which could be gained by the other functions, either not at all, or only by very roundabout ways. Such images have the value of definite discernments, and have a decisive bearing upon action, whenever intuition is given the chief weight; in which case, psychic adaptation is based almost exclusively upon intuition. Thinking, feeling, and sensation are relatively repressed; of these, sensation is the one principally affected, because, as the conscious function of sense, it offers the greatest obstacle to intuition. Sensation disturbs intuition’s clear, unbiassed, na[umlaut]ive awareness with its importunate sensuous stimuli; for these direct the glance upon the physical superficies, hence upon the very things round and beyond which intuition tries to peer. But since intuition, in the extraverted attitude, has a prevailingly objective orientation, it actually comes very near to sensation; indeed, the expectant attitude towards outer objects may, with almost equal probability, avail itself of sensation. Hence, for intuition really to become paramount, sensation must to a large extent be suppressed. I am now speaking of sensation as the simple and direct sense-reaction, an almost definite physiological and psychic datum. This must be expressly established beforehand, because, if I ask the intuitive how he is orientated, he will speak of things which are quite indistinguishable from sense-perceptions. Frequently he will even make use of the term ‘sensation’. He actually has sensations, but he is not guided by them per se, merely using them as directing-points for his distant vision. They are selected by unconscious expectation. Not the strongest sensation, in the physiological sense, obtains the crucial value, but any sensation whatsoever whose value happens to become considerably enhanced by reason of the intuitive’s unconscious attitude. In this way it may eventually attain the leading position, appearing to the intuitive’s consciousness indistinguishable from a pure sensation. But actually it is not so.

Just as extraverted sensation strives to reach the highest pitch of actuality, because only thus can the appearance of a complete life be created, so intuition tries to encompass the greatest possibilities, since only through the awareness of possibilities is intuition fullysatisfied. Intuition seeks to discover possibilities in the objective situation; hence as a mere tributary function (viz. when not in the position of priority) it is also the instrument which, in the presence of a hopelessly blocked situation, works automatically towards the issue, which no other function could discover. Where intuition has the priority, every ordinary situation in life seems like a closed room, which intuition has to open. It is constantly seeking outlets and fresh possibilities in external life. In a very short time every actual situation becomes a prison to the intuitive; it burdens him like a chain, prompting a compelling need for solution. At times objects would seem to have an almost exaggerated value, should they chance to represent the idea of a severance or release that might lead to the discovery of a new possibility. Yet no sooner have they performed their office, serving intuition as a ladder or a bridge, than they [p. 464] appear to have no further value, and are discarded as mere burdensome appendages. A fact is acknowledged only in so far as it opens up fresh possibilities of advancing beyond it and of releasing the individual from its operation. Emerging possibilities are compelling motives from which intuition cannot escape and to which all else must be sacrificed.

The Extraverted Intuitive [ENFP / ENTP] Type

Whenever intuition predominates, a particular and unmistakable psychology presents itself. Because intuition is orientated by the object, a decided dependence upon external situations is discernible, but it has an altogether different character from the dependence of the sensational type. The intuitive is never to be found among the generally recognized reality values, but he is always present where possibilities exist. He has a keen nose for things in the bud pregnant with future promise. He can never exist in stable, long-established conditions of generally acknowledged though limited value: because his eye is constantly ranging for new possibilities, stable conditions have an air of impending suffocation. He seizes hold of new objects and new ways with eager intensity, sometimes with extraordinary enthusiasm, only to abandon them cold-bloodedly, without regard and apparently without remembrance, as soon as their range becomes clearly defined and a promise of any considerable future development no longer clings to them. As long as a possibility exists, the intuitive is bound to it with thongs of fate. It is as though his whole life went out into the new situation. One gets the impression, which he himself shares, that he has just reached the definitive turning point in his life, and that from now on nothing else can seriously engage his thought and feeling. However reasonable and opportune it may be, and although every conceivable argument speaks in favour of stability, a day will come when nothing will deter him from regarding as a prison, the self-same situation that seemed to promise him freedom and deliverance, and from acting accordingly. Neither reason nor feeling can restrain or discourage him from a new possibility, even though it may run counter to convictions hitherto unquestioned. Thinking and feeling, the indispensable components of conviction, are, with him, inferior functions, possessing no decisive weight; hence they lack the power to offer any lasting. resistance to the force of intuition. And yet these are the only functions that are capable of creating any effectual compensation to the supremacy of intuition, since they can provide the intuitive with that judgment in which his type is altogether lacking. The morality of the intuitive is governed neither by intellect nor by feeling; he has his own characteristic morality, which consists in a loyalty to his intuitive view of things and a voluntary submission to its authority, Consideration for the welfare of his neighbours is weak. No solid argument hinges upon their well-being any more than upon his own. Neither can we detect in him any great respect for his neighbour’s convictions and customs; in fact, he is not infrequently put down as an immoral and ruthless adventurer. Since his intuition is largely concerned with outer objects, scenting out external possibilities, he readily applies himself to callings wherein he may expand his abilities in many directions. Merchants, contractors, speculators, agents, politicians, etc., commonly belong to this type.

Apparently this type is more prone to favour women than men; in which case, however, the intuitive activity reveals itself not so much in the professional as in the social sphere. Such women understand the art of utilizing every social opportunity; they establish right social connections; they seek out lovers with possibilities only to abandon everything again for the sake of a new possibility.

It is at once clear, both from the standpoint of political economy and on grounds of general culture, that such a type is uncommonly important. If well-intentioned, with an orientation to life not purely egoistical, he may render exceptional service as the promoter, if not the initiator of every kind of promising enterprise. He is the natural advocate of every minority that holds the seed of future promise. Because of his capacity, when orientated more towards men than things, to make an intuitive diagnosis of their abilities and range of usefulness, he can also ‘make’ men. His capacity to inspire his fellow-men with courage, or to kindle enthusiasm for something new, is unrivalled, although he may have forsworn it by the morrow. The more powerful and vivid his intuition, the more is his subject fused and blended with the divined possibility. He animates it; he presents it in plastic shape and with convincing fire; he almost embodies it. It is not a mere histrionic display, but a fate.

This attitude has immense dangers — all too easily the intuitive may squander his life. He spends himself animating men and things, spreading around him an abundance of life — a life, however, which others live, not he. Were he able to rest with the actual thing, he would gather the fruit of his labours; yet all too soon must he be running after some fresh possibility, quitting his newly planted field, while others reap the harvest. In the end he goes empty away. But when the intuitive lets things reach such a pitch, he also has the unconscious against him. The unconscious of the intuitive has a certain similarity with that of the sensation-type. Thinking and feeling, being relatively repressed, produce infantile and archaic thoughts and feelings in the unconscious, which may be compared [p. 467] with those of the countertype. They likewise come to the surface in the form of intensive projections, and are just as absurd as those of the sensation-type, only to my mind they lack the other’s mystical character; they are chiefly concerned with quasi-actual things, in the nature of sexual, financial, and other hazards, as, for instance, suspicions of approaching illness. This difference appears to be due to a repression of the sensations of actual things. These latter usually command attention in the shape of a sudden entanglement with a most unsuitable woman, or, in the case of a woman, with a thoroughly unsuitable man; and this is simply the result of their unwitting contact with the sphere of archaic sensations. But its consequence is an unconsciously compelling tie to an object of incontestable futility. Such an event is already a compulsive symptom, which is also thoroughly characteristic of this type. In common with the sensation-type, he claims a similar freedom and exemption from all restraint, since he suffers no submission of his decisions to rational judgment, relying entirely upon the perception of chance, possibilities. He rids himself of the restrictions of reason, only to fall a victim to unconscious neurotic compulsions in the form of oversubtle, negative reasoning, hair-splitting dialectics, and a compulsive tie to the sensation of the object. His conscious attitude, both to the sensation and the sensed object, is one of sovereign superiority and disregard. Not that he means to be inconsiderate or superior — he simply does not see the object that everyone else sees; his oblivion is similar to that of the sensation-type — only, with the latter, the soul of the object is missed. For this oblivion the object sooner or later takes revenge in the form of hypochondriacal, compulsive ideas, phobias, and every imaginable kind of absurd bodily sensation.

As IDRlabs said of NFJs, "Instead of being attuned to the specific entities and events of existence, their convergent perception tends to concern itself with how social groups (or even societies) may come together and with ways for people to unite in support of joint moods and values that are thought to be to their mutual benefit. In this respect, we can contrast the NFJs with the other NF types, the NFPs, who certainly have the idealism to want to bring people together, but who, because of their divergent perception, are less easily able to conceive of harmonious and mutual ideals, tending to get lost in the depths of their personal perspectives and outlooks instead. On balance, it is our contention that the Ni-Fe orientation of NFJs serves to make them the most ontologically holistic of all the types, capable of engaging with broad and complex issues in a nuanced way that encapsulates the 'wholes' of the universe and relates them to humanity’s place in it."

So NFJs (Ni+Fe) are ontologically holistic, socially integrative, and value coherence, harmony, shared meaning. By contrast, Osho does the *opposite* of Fe harmonization:

"Society is like a paperweight on you: It won't allow you to fly."

> “Anybody who gives you a belief system is your enemy.”

> “Each person should have his own religion.”

 

> "It is beautiful that there are three hundred religions in the world; more are needed. ... Each person should have his own religion - there should be as many religions as there are people!"

> “Pope John Paul II should be behind bars and Mother Teresa should jump into a lake.”

This is **anti-Fe** to the core:

* No attempt at social cohesion

* No shared moral narrative

* Open contempt for collective sentiment

* Provocation without reconciliation

An NFJ critiques systems *in order to realign them*.

Osho critiques systems **to dissolve them entirely**.

Also, NFJs are deeply future-oriented and teleological (even spiritually):

> “I keep tomorrow open.”

> “I don’t know about tomorrow.”

That is **anti-Ni directionality**. NFJs may doubt outcomes, but they still *orient toward* them. So NFJ doesn’t hold.

“There simply seems to be much more reality out there to be cognized and savored.”

Osho’s language is saturated with **overflowing reality**, not convergence:

* Multiple religions

* Infinite prophets

* Endless mystery

* No final answers

That’s NFP perception in full bloom.

Paul McCartney

To get the Fe vs Fi argument out of the way first I will start with his which Feeling he preferred.

Your mileage may vary, but one point in favour of Fi I would highlight would be in this interview here (seriously, check it out): https://youtu.be/ufor1B9y7Xw. I know Fi generally keeps to itself more than Fe, but, all else being equal, Fe can also be a bit more deliberate about what it reveals, whereas McCartney just kind of said stuff in the moment without considering how it made him look. I don’t think McCartney filtered everything through the prism of ‘How is this going to affect others? How is this going to make me come across?’ I think he was more just true to himself and let the chips fall where they may. 

If we take it that he has Fi, then his advocacy for farm animal rights was stemming from an internal value than external one, i.e. not primarily orienting his values by objective sentiments/data, but rather they sprung from inside, passionately. Fe types can definitely advocate for farm animals, too, and, yes, doing so is definitely an 'objective value'. But for the reasons I mentioned, I think McCartney fits the bill for an Fi type better in this context.

As for why Se over Ne (if we assume he's a FP), he doesn't like to analyse himself and is said to be more of a doer than talker. All of which sound more Se than Ne due to preference for action and the lack of preference for introspection and verbosity:

Q Magazine: "Usually, McCartney says, he doesn’t take naturally to self-analysis – he prefers to be a 'doer', not a 'talker'."

Some think he has a preference for Si but I don't agree, as IDRlabs said of Aristotle's Se (which also very much applies to Paul McCartney) "one giveaway to Aristotle’s preference for Se rather than Si is that he does not submerge the facts in the cultural layer in which he finds them, but rather strips them of the cultural layer in order to get to the pure naked facts."

McCartney: "There's nothing deep behind a scream, you know? A scream is just the same as a roar in a football match; there's nothing, sort of, sexual or any horrible things like that. You know, that's the sort of thing people occasionally read into it. There's nothing like that in it, I don't think, because when I used to go to shows, I'd shout—but I didn't mean anything more than 'I like the music you're playing' or 'I like the way you play your guitar,' sort of thing. There's nothing behind it."

So with Se and Fi, which one of the 2 SFPs fit better for Paul McCartney?

Argument for ESFP (I will present the argument for ISFP later):

In arguing the primacy of Se in McCartney's psyche (and general extroversion) I would like to submit the following quotes attesting to his general extroverted attitude before further notice (i.e. a psychic disposition of primarily being concerned with the object itself rather than being primarily concerned with bringing his own ideas to work on the object):

McCartney: "If I was to sit down and write a song, now, I'd use my usual method: I'd either sit down with a guitar or at the piano and just look for melodies, chord shapes, musical phrases, some words, a thought just to get started with. And then I just sit with it to work it out, like I'm writing an essay or doing a crossword puzzle. ... I've really never found a better system and that system is just playing the guitar and looking for something that suggests a melody and perhaps some words if you're lucky. ... But I'm of the school of the instinctive."

McCartney: "I don't ever write a song thinking, 'Now I'll write a song about...' I do sometimes, but mainly I don't. Mainly I'm just doing a tune and then some words come into my head, you know. ... It doesn't mean anything, you know, but those just happened to come to my head. So that's what this song is about... it is about my dog. I don't mean it, you know. I don't ever try to make a serious social comment, you know. So you can read anything you like into it, but really it's just a song. It's me singing to my dog." [Source: http://www.beatlesinterviews.org/db1968.1120.beatles.html]

McCartney: "There is no sort of point you just think, 'Okay, now I can do it, I'll just sit down and do it.' It's a little more fluid than that. ... It's this fluid thing, music. I kind of like that."

[Interviewer: "And I Love Her. Was that written for anybody?"]

McCartney: "It's just a love song; no, it wasn't for anyone. Having the title start in midsentence, I thought that was clever. Well, Perry Como did And I Love You So, many years later. Tried to nick the idea. I like that—it was a nice tune, that one. I still like it."

Let's compare these McCartney quotes to even a Se-heavy Fi-Se individual in Avril Lavigne (whose Tertiary Ni is not even in the, one could say, highly developed end):

Avril Lavigne: "I write a lot from my personal experiences in life—either situations, emotional, very emotional things that I've been through [that] I've experienced; situations that really get to me [or] move me; how I feel, maybe, about other people; other situations I've seen my friends, my family have gone through. And my songs are open for other people's interpretations, and I think that's the beauty of music. ... I just think that's really cool: to throw my own emotional experiences to a song, to use music to express myself, and then have people around the world check it out, hear it, listen to it, and have it mean something completely different to them. ... I know I can be going through something one day and hear a song come on the radio and totally be like, 'Yeah, I'm feeling that way right now.' It makes me feel empowered, or it just moves me emotionally."

So as shown, even compared to a more Se-heavy ISFP like Avril Lavigne, McCartney seems to view and engage things on their own terms to a greater degree as a result of experiencing the world as object (the extrovert, which in this case McCartney), as opposed to a dominant Introverted Feeler primarily experiencing and orienting the world and things through the lens of their own subjective landscape (in this case Lavigne). So even a ISFP high in the high end of the auxiliary Se spectrum is still more inward-facing than McCartney's more outward-facing approach.

Now, this does not mean that extroverts will not try to imbue things with subjective depth, one could find many examples of EFPs doing that (as a result of auxiliary Fi), no one is a pure introvert and extrovert afterall. However, if we agree that McCartney, by comparison, does not exhibit such a subjective layer between himself and the object (i.e. does not feel the need to tether the object to his own subject as a primary source), then the likelihood of him being ESFP is stronger. Even when an ISFP isn't explicitly mentioning their inner world or motivations, the ISFP cannot often help but "wedge" their subjective evaluations into things. Even when they aren't being "deep" (as we know not all ISFPs are "deep"), there is a sense that they are filtering reality through a personal, internal resonance even when they are not specifically talking about themselves.

I don't see that much evidence for tertiary Ni either. I know ISFPs prefer Se but they don't repress Ni so the ISFP is willing to being the symbolic representative nature of Ni into union with Fi and Se often by expressing itself through some aesthetic form (and by "aesthetic" I'm not limiting it to "art" but also a way of life or a way of carrying one's self). The ISFPs then can have a tendency to want to and try and capture this Ni "image" in their mind based on their perspective. In other words, the ISFP typically imbues meaning in their cognitive life to a noticably higher degree than ESFPs, using Ni to serve Fi in taking a deep inner emotion and finding a singular, symbolic archetype to represent it:

David Bowie: "[My paintings] are very personal to me as well. They're all portraits, and they're all portraits of people in isolation. Most of the paintings are Germans or Turks who live in Berlin, and they're either from East Berlin and who are now living in West Berlin and knowing their family's on the other side of the Wall. And so, I try to capture a lot of that kind of isolation, and I put a lot of myself into paintings as well; they're very much part of me."

Now, I have to preface that it does get tricky as because it's tertiary, meaning ISFPs can toggle it on and off, so many ISFPs will be realistic (meaning not concerned with the "ideal") in many things whilst in some others things they will be (because after all they prefer Se over Ni at the end of the day). But all else being equal, an ISFP is more likely than an ESFP to describe their work via subjective associations and impressions (if they do happen to open themselves up), as a results of dominant subjective Feeling and semi-conscious Intuition (as shown above), than the ESFP. McCartney fits the latter than former rather than the latter for reasons I mentioned already.

Now the argument against this will be that the ISFPs I mentioned had (or has, in Frank Ocean's case) highly developed tertiary Ni, and so by nature were more more introspective than other ISFP individuals. And that isn't a terrible objection but remember the Avril Lavigne comparison in the beginning, who is someone who clearly prefers Se over Ni in a way that is more pronounced, yet still is more introverted (in a typological sense) than McCartney.

To move on, I'll further explore his function stack. Fi dominants hate having to make real-world tradeoffs that compromise their ideals, EFPs too of course, but IFPs to an even greater degree. McCartney doesn't seem to have the IFPs tendency to either want to hold/experience a personal ideal/sentiment to the purest extent. Rather, he seems more willing to compromise purity of Feeling in specific ways in order to get a job done, or get a personal project out into the world, (which doesn't sound like dominant Fi):

John Higgs: "McCartney places great emphasis on starting and finishing work immediately, before you have had the chance to overanalyse or come up with an excuse not to do it. ... As he explains, ‘you get rid of the hesitation and the doubt, and you just steamroll through’. This approach paid dividends when he came to work with John Lennon. Every time they sat down to write a song they would finish it, and they never once came away from a writing session having failed to come up with something. 'I’m all for that way of working,’ he has said. ‘Once John and I or I alone started a song, there was nowhere else to go; we had to finish it.’"

Contrast this with the ISFP Dido, whom prioritizes inner harmony and alignment above all:

Dido: “[The way] sort of been the way I’ve been with everything in life [is] if I’m not feeling like I want to put the music out, then I won’t put the music out. Or if I’m not feeling the need to get up on stage, then I won’t get up on stage.”

Dido: “People keep saying, ‘Why did you step away [from making music]?' It didn’t really feel like that to me. I just write songs. ... I’ve never made records until enough of it builds up and I feel like I’ve got something to say."

Yes, an Fi dominants can use Te but it would have to be channeled effectively in more narrow domains that are handled in an overarching sense by the dominant function. As your site said of the inferior function, "rather than facing the hassle of attempting to force the inferior function to come to the forefront of consciousness, the most differentiated function will try to do the job of the least differentiated function instead." So in IFPs it would manifest, in this context, as Michael Goist put it for Fi dominant types, "If they are picky about the artistic process, it’s because to them, the final product shouldn’t be merely serviceable, utilitarian, and come in on time and within budget (Te), but rather should be *perfect* i.e. complete, well-considered, fully fleshed-out and authentic to their artistic selves, with no stone left unturned in the process." I don't see this process to that extent with McCartney personally.

Another important thing is that, as extroverts, ESFP in a general sense, will be more 'on the go' than ISFPs (not a rule but it is a indication) due to a (again general, not universal) dislike for humdrum environments in the EP temperment. Of course, typology is cognition and not behavior, but it gives certain clues:

McCartney: "I've just been on holiday for three weeks ... After three weeks of that I get bored, I wanna meet people again and get back to the life where you're sort of meeting people every second. ... This is a change from having a restful life, I'm not very keen on this life where you sort of blaze around in the sun, can't stand it."

The counterargument against ESFP is that some of his songs contains metaphors and the like, that there is more to his work than merely the sounds but that could also apply to many other ESP artists. Is the average ESP supposed to say their film meant nothing, people shouldn’t read anything into it, and doing so isn’t evidence of their having deeply engaged with it? As Ric Velasquez said, "Do you expect lyrics written by an S type to be completely devoid of all metaphor and abstraction? And if so, do you also expect the lyrics of N types to be completely devoid of all practical and specific meaning as well?"

Argument for ISFP:

For starters, metaphors in his songs like Blackbird and it's connection to the civil rights movement (blackbird meaning black girl, flying equals freedom) definitely seems much more semi-conscious Ni than unconscious. All else being equal, an ISFP is much more likely to channel that type of abstraction to their work than ESFPs (not that an ESFPs work is automatically more shallower or anything). As IDRlabs said, an inferior function can't just be developed in the way of dominant, auxiliary, of even tertiary, because it's the polar opposite of the dominant, so it becomes repressed, a horse which cannot be educated.

Also, an ISFP is typically less disclosing of the abstract meaning of their work (which is why he may have sometimes dismissed the meaning in Blackbird in some interviews) than INFPs for example. Ni in itself often finds it difficult to explain itself, and so does Fi by itself (the 2 introverted "idealistic" functions), so when one has both functions and none of those 2 functions are repressed, then the Fi-Ni comination makes self-expression particularly difficult. Not explaining their work is something very common among ISFPs in general due to the combination of Fi-Se-Ni as shown below (Yes, ESFPs can say they don't like describing their work either but just from my observation, they are generally more talkative and open):

David Bowie: “I had to resign myself, many years ago, that I’m not too articulate when it comes to explaining how I feel about things. But my music does it for me, it really does. There, in the chords and melodies, is everything I want to say. The words just jolly it along. It’s always been my way of expressing what for me is inexpressible by any other means.”

Kate Bush: "I really like the idea of my work speaking for me, not me speaking for me. I think my works says a lot more interesting stuff than I ever could and it’s more eloquent, and that is what I feel I have to offer the world. I don’t feel that what I have to say personally is that interesting and it’s not something that I have enthusiasm about, it’s not fun for me – I don’t really enjoy it."

Paul McCartney arguably fits this function dynamic based on this quote:

McCartney: "I don't like people explaining albums. The only way you can explain it is to hear it. You can't really use words about music, otherwise we'd do a talking album. The album is the explanation, and it's up to you to make sure what you want of it."

So looking at it from this perspective, we can chalk up all the examples of dominant Se for McCartney as auxiliary Se expressing itself to protect the private nature of Fi-Ni. Remember ISFP's main perception function is Se, Ni is subordinate to it, it's just not relegated to the extent of Se dominant. No ISFP has Ni so prominant that it pushes Fi and Se to the side and becomes the defining core of their personality afterall. That's not how the tertiary function works. It is merely semi-conscious, and when it is conscious, it supports the main two functions in a way that is aspirational and puerile (immature).

I will start with Ni. So as I understand it best, Ni typing thinking is something that ESFPs find to be very taxing on their mental processes (as all inferior functions go). Ni, while can be understandable to them, simply gets in the way directly perceiving the object, object not being limited to just sights or sounds (though those apply primarily) but also just the natural flow of life i.e. the things one needs to do, places one needs to go, and people one needs to see. Thinking "Ni stuff" takes up too much time so it gets pushed to the wayside until some someone directly wants to bring up some philosophical conversation in which it will be up to the individual to decide whether to engage with it or dismiss it (as there is variance in this department).

Why Drew Barrymore is ESFP

P or J?

Barrymore: "I don't think I could ever stay with any one thing the rest of my life; I need change all the time. But this [style I'm wearing] is suiting me just peachy right now because I think it goes along with my personality." [Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWxh-pjJaew&list=WL&index=40]
(Pe with Fi combination, needs novelty that is enhanced by self-expression. The need for change is filtered through what 'suits [her] personality,' suggesting that her external actions must align with her internal values, identity, and preferences. So strong FP indications.)

Barbra Walters: "By age 15 Drew Barrymore had lived three lifetimes" [Source: https://youtu.be/0lY5spR1ivk?si=PE3BUo_4t-I9jx7Y&t=87]
(Could be evidence for high Pe. Packing a high volume of actualized experience into a short amount of time because they are constantly engaging with the object sounds very EP on the face of it. Or could be just the hectic business of being a child actor of the Barrymore family. Or a combination of the 2)

Interviewer: "I started writing down one-word things about Drew. Just tell me if they're true. Fun?"

Barrymore:  "I like to have fun."

Interviewer: "Unconventional?"

Barrymore:  "Definitely."

Interviewer: "Your wedding proved that right."

Barrymore:  "Yes."

Interviewer: "Impulsive?"

Barrymore: "Mhm." [Source: https://youtu.be/ThIQUtq5nVY?si=lud5Ge2alEupUQPC&t=82]

(By her own admission, she likes fun and is unconventional and impulsive. Sounds far more Pe than Pi+Je, especially if you consider the quotes before indicating P over J)

Barrymore: "[My father and I] feel awkward with plans." [Source: https://youtu.be/0lY5spR1ivk?si=huHOqAC-GtKaI9MS&t=373]

(Shows a dislike and discomfort in planning, so higher Pe and lower Je/Pi seems even more likely.)

Sensor or Intuitive?

To go straight to the point, she seems to have a focus on actuality (S) rather than conceptualizing (N). For example, she focuses her life "as is" rather than subjecting the facts (whether facts of her life or facts in general) to some abstract idea, association, or hypothetical even if given the opportunity to conceptualize. Preference for S over N more likely:

Interviewer: "You think your life would have been different if you had not been an actress? ... I mean, different, yes, but I mean, do you think you wouldn't have had all the problems you had?"

Barrymore: "I don't know, because my life was what it was and, like I said, no regrets."

[Source: https://youtu.be/kWxh-pjJaew?si=dINXAFKklYa_qGVu&t=251]

Barrymore: "People go, 'What would your life be like if it wasn't like it is?' The truth is, I don't know, 'cause it was like it was. And the truth also is that I wouldn't have it any other way, you know, because I wouldn't be at this very place now—here in the beautiful studio with you, comfortable in my skin, happy about life, and just enthralled, you know?" [Source: https://youtu.be/f_xgyhzD4kQ?si=dNjqKQ_WqoNG4-NB&t=379]

Interviewer: "Are you one of these people that—can you enjoy the minute? Or is it hard? Or are you always looking to the next thing?"

Barrymore: "Yeah [I enjoy the minute], I believe it is those moments that we live for in life, you know? So, I'm definitely going to grab them while I can." [Source: https://youtu.be/ThIQUtq5nVY?si=PP8gxC0wI241KoLb&t=278]

(While one might say that this is more of an indication of P than anything, and I wouldn't fully disagree, the quote seems to me to be more S with P than just P, Se in other words. As you guys said, "Where Extraverted Intuition might see possibilities branching out from a single event, Se stays grounded in what is immediately observable. This can make Se-users appear pragmatic or even opportunistic, as they are inclined to seize opportunities as they arise rather than planning far into the future.")

Taking the evidence together of what was shown this far regarding S and P, it is safe to presume that she is one of the SP types (conscious Se).

Fi?

Well as stated before she was described as very candid (and in interviews, from my view, she is indeed so on the whole) and is self-expressive but I also think there is other evidence for Fi is as shown below:

Barrymore: "I think I have, like, 10 people running around inside me. And so, to put them all to a productive and creative use, I become different people and create characters. But I want it to be as real as possible, and I want to be as free as possible. If I tried to act, I don't think it would work."
[Source: https://youtu.be/fFSgqXLaTmk?si=YvEjpthYhC4x20dS&t=374]
(Very concerned with authenticity and inner alignment with her non-legalistic identity that wants to be experienced to the purest extent.)

Barrymore: "[My character] Holly's like ... just this, like, incredibly beautiful, sensual spirit, you know? ... She loves life, and somehow she's managed to remain oblivious to the ugliness. And I think that that is one of the most beautiful things, you know? Maybe people can take it as naive; I think it's, like, amazing. And that she's so trusting and open, and she believes that everybody has this incredible good side to them, no matter what, you know? Yeah, I mean, what a refreshing change. ... I had a great outlet with this character."
[Source:https://youtu.be/f_xgyhzD4kQ?si=84ZJixko58JtX_j2&t=746]
(Drawn to idiosyncratic qualities, like innocence and nativity, that emotionally resonate with her that are not informed by external input but purified from it, which then becomes a vehicle for personal self-expression)

Barrymore: "Separation is very necessary sometimes when you need to grow and into yourself. You need to separate from the person who you think each of you are, you know, stopping that process. ... I needed to grow in my own direction [from my mother], and the two of us were so close."
Interviewer: "And what was wrong with her direction?"
Barrymore: "Um, it just wasn't my direction, and my direction wasn't her direction, and we couldn't find that happy medium with each other. And so, sometimes, separation is the best way to accomplish, you know, growing as your own individual."
[Source: https://youtu.be/NRHC7qIHMcg?si=5vlDmRR3rjyO17oD&t=591]
(Isn't determined to try and get people on the same page of fellow feeling but prefers to give people space to diverge into their own "differentiated personal affects" as you guys put it for Fi.)

As an aside to step out of the quotes for a moment, based on her manner of expression in interviews overall I don’t think Barrymore filtered everything through the prism of ‘How is this going to affect others? How is this going to make me come across?’ I think she was more just true to herself and let the chips fall where they may. Whether she was being jovial or whatever, it was inner feeling expressed outwardly.

Now, one might point out that her histrionic personality style is a point against conscious Fi's general purity of expression:

Rolling Stone: "While she often talks about her desire for anonymity, Barrymore continually does things to draw attention to herself. Lots and lots of attention. Tales of self-indulgent, look-at-me behavior stalk Barrymore and Erlandson-like a bloodhound with a personal stake in the chase. She admits to the disturbingly contradictory behavior."

But this does not necessarily contradict a preference for conscious Fi at all. As you guys said of the histironic personality style in FPs (especially in EFPs): "Perhaps surprisingly, FP types seem to be overrepresented among Histrionics, but this conflation need not be so strange after all: Being structurally attuned to navigate by unmediated value judgments, the FP types will also, all other things being equal, have an easier time dramatizing their behavior in the way that Histrionics are wont to do."  

SFP?

So with all this evidence Se and Fi seem to be the 2 most prominent functions in her consciousness. Any type can be interested in fashion, but the idea of one's clothes being really indicative of who a person is as a individual in terms of self-expression is a sentiment that SFPs tend to adopt. It is a combination of the "object standing on its own terms" (Se) meeting the "inner emotional self" (Fi), a unique bridge between the material world and the personal heart, which they not only apply to themselves but other people. For an SFP, clothing isn't just a costume; it is a sensory manifestation of one's inner self. Hence we see SFPs saying:

Mads Mikkelsen: "I am incredibly observant of what people are wearing. There really is something about the saying that clothing creates people . ... There's signal-value in all clothing. ... No matter what clothes it is, it does something to you."

Oscar Isaac: "[Clothing] can be such an indicator of so many things. How you feel, how you want others to perceive you. ... [When creating a character] I always try to find something [about their clothing] that is grounding."

Kate Bush: "Clothes are such a strong part of who a human being is."

Pharrell Williams: "Fashion and music are like time and space. Without time there is no space ... without fashion there is no music. What are you going to wear in your video? What are you going to listen to going down the runway? It's the same thing."

Barrymore is no different in this regard:

Barrymore: "I mean, [my character's] wardrobe was just the coolest stuff I've ever seen. It was stuff I'd never wear in a million years, but had the best time wearing in the whole world. And it was great because ... her clothes were very indicative of who she was without saying a word ... I think it's great to get the subliminals of who someone is without having to talk about it incessantly and shove it in your face but you just look at someone and you know who they are, you know? I mean, this is our shell, so I don't know what clothes are for, but they're indicative of something. I know that." [Source: https://youtu.be/tfCu2ZjZTWg?si=rRz16MVFuIblEOvd&t=89]

Taking it together so far, her preference and inclination towards spontaneity and actuality (Se), desire for inner harmony with her personal sentiments and sense of self (Fi) solidifies SFP, but which one is more likely? We'll find out.

The deciding factor: Inferior or Tertiary Te?

If extroversion vs introversion is not yet conclusive so far (as a result of a fleshed out development of both Se and Fi to the point where it's hard to see which one is subordinate to the other), then we can look at the bottom functions as a "cheat code". One general difference between Te in the IFP and EFP is whether the individual is exhibiting a general repulsion/avoidance of the Te world (suggesting it is the Inferior function) or an optimistic, playful engagement with it (suggesting it is the Tertiary function).

Fi dominants, having Inferior Te, often recoil (or if not recoil, then at least shy away) from impersonal real-world systems (typically finding business/logistics "boring" or "soul-crushing"), prioritizing the inner purity of their values over practical adaptation or realization. Examples of multiple famous IFPs (ISFPs and INFPs) showcasing this aversion to this "lesser of two evils" real-world trade-offs type of thinking include:

Jonsi: "It just took a big toll on [me] — that there’s like a business side of the music industry ... and it was really complicated and really boring and had nothing to do with writing songs and creating music. I was a little bit depressed at that time." [Source: https://www.spin.com/2013/06/sigur-ros-kveikur-jonsi-interview-2013/]

Morrissey: "I think I've become a little bit, slightly, negative about the music industry where perhaps five years ago, entering it, I felt very idealistic—that lots of things could be changed and lots of people can be erased from the whole thing. And it isn't necessarily true, really, I find; so, I've become a little bit skeptical." [Source: https://youtu.be/eOls--A6oMM?si=uxMVpGA_1c31vqF0&t=14]

Bjork: "I don't take so much notice of the money thing, it's very boring but I'm very lucky because ... I have ... full artistic control. ... The thing is I can write any song I want, of course, and then I can obviously work with anybody I want and then when I start for example writing my songs there is no master plan when it is coming out, I can just write until I think it's ready." [Source: https://youtu.be/Q-dFRFsQKGQ?si=QcjWryM64Iilgwqv&t=257]

Chris Martin: "I don't really care about EMI. I'm not really concerned about that. I think shareholders are the greatest evil of this modern world. ... It's very strange for us that we spent 18 months in the studio just trying to make songs that make us feel a certain way and then suddenly become part of this corporate machine." [Source: https://www.the-independent.com/arts-entertainment/music/news/coldplay-s-frontman-turns-on-evil-shareholders-491229.html]

Robert Smith: "My whole life I've played music for my own personal enjoyment and the idea of it becoming a machine or a business is just horrible." [Source: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2011/sep/10/robert-smith-the-cure-bestival]

Dido: "Music had always been my personal thing, no one invaded it, no one bothered me, it was absolutely mine. It was my escape. Whenever anything was bugging me, I'd just go and play my music and it made me happy. And there was something about them giving me money for it that, to me, symbolised it being taken away. I felt like I no longer had the thing that made my life worth living." [Source: https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2001/may/20/features.magazine27]

[Interviewer: "Is there anything to the idea that tech entrepreneurs are the new rock stars?"]

Trent Reznor: "What a load of bullshit that is. ... I’m biased: Music or film or writing or journalism — things that inspire emotional connections are so much more important to me than things that only have utilitarian ends. I’m glad someone figured out a food-delivery service. That’s made my life a little bit better. But that’s not that interesting to me. A good song can become part of my soul. So this whole nonsense about tech rock stars is farce." [Source: https://www.vulture.com/2017/07/trent-reznor-nine-inch-nails.html]

If we compare those IFP quotes with the quotes below by Barrymore that I'm about to show l, there does seem to be a big difference in how she engages with this "Te stuff" compared to them:

Barrymore: "I definitely have another side to me that is business savvy and that loves to be able to get in there—you know, with a bunch of men—and have a group of women that are totally on it, and then have great ideas and are getting things accomplished in this world." [Source: https://youtu.be/ZHSs1vI4e5Q?si=YbYKKwQLIs2Cphpw&t=17]

Barrymore: "[Me and Kim Greitzer] just wanted to, like, go fucking forth with our dream. And our dream was to have a production company. It's two girlies wanting to make good movies, with people who are passionate, and I never thought that I would be into this side of the business, but I've found myself really into it. ... We're very much on the same wavelength in the business sense. We sit down with, like, our iced teas and cigarettes at our desks and we just plow through the day. We do it together, and it's really great. Not every decision has to have the weight of the world on it. Then again, certain decisions do." [Source: https://thedrewseum.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Interview-May-1995_Rev.pdf?hl=en-US]

Sounds like optimistic and aspirational Te than unconscious and repressed, in other words tertiary Te over inferior seems more likely based on the quotes. As you guys said of the tertiary, "The tertiary function ... remains free to dream ... arising again with a new and impossible impetus ... in the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities." Whilst the inferior is repressed, so it “is [like] a horse that cannot be educated." As John Barnes put it, ISFPs "much like the INFP, often shy away from positions where they are forced to make effectual decisions."

Furthermore, she doesn't seem to be as averse to this "lesser of two evils" type of thinking with regard to real-world trade-offs that IFPs (as explimified by the IFP quotes that I already shown) often evince as a result of their repressed Te. The higher Fi is in someone, the more they tend to not find it natural to align with real-world change that involves compromises and trade-offs that don’t line up with their internal sentiment. This doesn't seem to apply to Barrymore: 

Barrymore: "I love Hollywood, and it’s a great place, and I love working in it, and it's just my favorite. In fact, I wanna get more involved in the game than ever—trying to produce and stuff—but it's a mortal, created entity. ... I love this business; it has its downfalls, [but] if you just stay away from the downfalls, you literally can. And sometimes that means staying at home, but that's okay. If that's the trade-off, I'll take it." [Source: https://youtu.be/UuosC8iSaz8?t=396&si=UodmMNdDU0_BSgth]

All in all, while Barrymore clearly prefers Fi, she doesn't seem to repress Te.

More evidence for E over I:

Interviewer: "When does the wall come down, though?"

Barrymore: "I don't have a wall up."

Interviewer: "I know you don't. ... Is there ever a time when you say, 'Okay, that's enough pictures. That's enough talk. That's enough of me being the public person. I'm going to be my private self now'?"

Barrymore: "I think it gets to a point where you have to accept that you're not really entitled to do that in public because you are a public person, and your job actually becomes a 24-hour-a-day thing. And once you willingly accept that, then it's actually quite okay. And if you like being able to interact with people, you know, then it's a gift. And if you're not acting like that, you're being rude to people. And I don't believe in that method of acting." [Source: https://youtu.be/NRHC7qIHMcg?si=E22PFkDKhHnpXvyf&t=1138]

(This quote could be an indication that she lacks an extra layer between herself and the object, an introvert all else being equal fears the influence of the object. This is relative and not absolute, but it is a good pointer considering all the other evidence.)

Interviewer: "There is a kind of larger-than-life quality to them all, even to quiet Ethel, who in some ways was the dominant one. Does that teach you something, maybe growing up, that not to be afraid to assert yourself?"

Barrymore: "I don't think I've ever been afraid of that, you know, to assert myself. What does that mean exactly?"

Interviewer: "Yeah, I don't think you would know what it would not mean, somehow."

Barrymore: Okay, well, if it's a good thing, then cool."

Interviewer: "Well, to just—to be outward."

Barrymore: "Exactly; I am outward." [Source: https://youtu.be/dAA3mn3dv0Y?si=il1qKfKIQnLGNGua&t=188]

(In the exchange above, it seems to indicate a more assertive and outward pattern towards the object, which in Jungian is typically more indicative of higher extroversion. When someone's relation to the object is *habitual*, they're an extravert.)

Addressing the counter arguments:

One might say that the quote below doesn't fit the stereotypical ESFP:

Barrymore: “I had a different childhood from anyone I knew. I listened to Jim Morrison rather than Sesame Street, and I read Charles Bukowski. I thought that it was normal, until I was ten years old, talking about Bukowski to a thirty-five-year-old, who reacted, ‘How the hell do you know that?’ It was just me and my mom. She didn’t have many friends, and neither did I.”

In a sense it doesn't sound stereotypically ESFP but one can't type someone using stereotypes deterministically. For example, if someone is Se-Fi-Te-Ni, then they're an ESFP no matter what their upbringing or ideas are like. Typology is about cognition, not behaviour. But (and it is a big "but") the stereotypes exist (except when they're straight-up nonsense) because, yes, the functions in a certain order often manifest in certain recognizable ways. The keyword there is "often." I'm sure you and I can think of examples of people you believe to be a certain type who don't line up with its stereotype. This stuff seems to be more about content than cognition.

One might say that the following quotes are indicative of introversion over extroversion:

Barrymore: "[My father] and I are very alike, we spend a lot of time alone." [Source: https://youtu.be/0lY5spR1ivk?si=qJNNEbv9AJukzxpB&t=367]

[Interviewer: Do you regret anything that you wrote in that book? Because I recently reread the book and, uh, it's so candid. But then, you're very candid; I've always found you to be extremely candid.]

Barrymore: Well, you know, I think there are certain aspects where you open yourself up in this world... I don't believe in regrets. I think that it makes life uneasy, you know, to feel that way. But I do maintain a certain reclusiveness now that I much more enjoy than being open, you know, for everyone to look inside. Unfortunately, in this profession, you have to deal with that; it comes with the territory, and you have to be understanding of that. But I don't want my life to be an open book. I need to maintain something for myself, absolutely. [Source: https://youtu.be/kWxh-pjJaew?si=mGtnird9pHvtmKV5&t=192]

To preface again, typology is cognition, not behavior but the thing is that while Jungian introverts can be behaviorally extraverted for periods and vice versa - to a point that's even surprising - at some point, they're going to have to relate back to the subject. They are going to be burned out by the object at some point. One who might say that the quotes here could be an indication that she is an introvert needing to revert back to her own subject may have a point. But the quotes overall seem to be more about boundary setting and living home alone with her dogs (at that time) than anything E vs I in a typological sense. Boundary-setting and living alone with your dogs does not equate to being an introvert. And even if one did view it through that lens, no one is a complete introvert or extrovert.

Conclusion

Overall, ESFP seems for Drew Barrymore seems like the best fit from my view.

, along with an optimistic and engaging relation to being enterprising and practically mobilizing people and resources toward concrete defineable real-world goals (Te).

First off: this is a *serious* argument. Not vibes-typing, not quote-mining in the sloppy way—this is a structurally coherent case that actually engages with function theory as *process*, not costume. So let’s give it the respect it deserves.

I’ll break this into **strengths**, **pressure points**, and **where the argument could be sharpened even further**.

---

## Where your argument is genuinely strong

### 1. Your Se–Fe framing is the backbone, and it holds

Your use of Hannah Strachan’s Cleopatra framing + Akinwande’s “cultural empiricism” is one of the most compelling parts here. You’re not just saying “Will Smith is charming → Fe,” you’re saying:

> He *calibrates himself to the feeling environment first* and only then adjusts his self-presentation.

That’s the key distinction people routinely miss.

The authenticity quote is doing real work in your argument, because Smith explicitly says:

* authenticity was **not internally policed**
* it became relevant **when the external environment demanded it**

That is a textbook Fe-mediated shift, not Fi. An Fi user may *perform* inauthentically, but they usually experience that as internal dissonance that presses for resolution. Smith describes something closer to:

> “This was a role. The rules changed. I adapted.”

That adaptation logic is Se–Fe, not Fi-Te or Fi-Se.

Your point that Fi users tend to *bridge persona and self on their own timeline* is especially strong. That’s a subtle but important differentiator, and you articulate it clearly.

---

### 2. Your treatment of tertiary Fe is unusually precise (and frankly rare)

Most typology discussions flatten tertiary Fe into:

* “charm”
* “people skills”
* or worse, “fake niceness”

You avoided all of that and instead framed tertiary Fe as:

> an *initial orientation to external sentiment*, even when the response is rebellion, provocation, or subversion.

This is exactly right.

Your examples (Mirren, Grey, Lords, Fincher’s comment on Spacey, Miley) aren’t just random quotes—they all demonstrate:

* awareness of perception
* *intentional manipulation of expectation*
* and crucially, **meaning is generated relationally**, not internally purified first

That’s Fe logic, even when it’s mischievous or disruptive.

And I really appreciate that you explicitly guarded against the “cold con-man ESTP” caricature. You’re not arguing *amorality*—you’re arguing *orientation*.

---

### 3. Your Will Smith Fe analysis is well-evidenced and internally consistent

The Rolling Stone quote about being accommodating because impact is magnified is *extremely* Fe-coded. That’s not:

* “What feels right to me”
* it’s “How does my mass distort the emotional field?”

Likewise, the “laser-guided ice pick” quote is excellent because it shows:

* awareness of emotional weak points
* *capacity* to exploit them
* but a conscious decision to pad instead of stab

That’s Fe + Ti restraint, not Fi morality.

Fi would frame this as:

> “That violates my values.”

Smith frames it as:

> “I understand the mechanics—and I choose how to apply them.”

That distinction matters.

---

### 4. Your Ti vs Te section is conceptually on target

Your use of Jung’s Ti definition and the iPhone analogy is well chosen, but more importantly, your *application* to Smith works.

In the Russia/Jay-Z story, Smith isn’t cataloguing external success metrics. He’s trying to infer:

* what *principle* is operating
* what *has changed* in the social ecosystem
* how meaning is now generated

That’s Ti pattern-extraction layered onto Se experience.

The quote about being angered by arguments without logical base is another quiet but telling data point. Smith’s irritation isn’t about inefficiency (Te) but about incoherence.

So yes—**ESTP Ti > ESFP Te** is a defensible conclusion.

---

## Where the argument is vulnerable (but not broken)

### 1. Some readers will still conflate “talks about authenticity” with Fi

You handle this *better than most*, but this is where skeptics will push back hardest.

Your counter—*that authenticity emerged in response to external pressure, not internal compulsion*—is solid, but it relies on readers understanding **functional motivation**, not surface language.

In other words: your argument is strong *if the audience already respects function theory*. If they’re stuck at trait-level MBTI, they’ll miss it.

This isn’t a flaw in your reasoning—just a communication bottleneck.

---

### 2. The ESTP stack explains Smith *post-fame* better than *pre-fame*

This is a subtle point, but worth noting.

Your argument is strongest from:

* peak celebrity onward
* when the “feeling environment” is global and constant

Some critics might argue that early-career Will Smith (Fresh Prince era) feels more Fi-expressive or values-driven.

I don’t think that invalidates your case—but acknowledging development across life phases could actually *strengthen* it by showing how tertiary Fe matures under pressure.

---

### 3. You assume more typology literacy than most audiences have

Again—not a logical flaw, but a practical one.

Your argument lives at the level of:

* Jungian orientation
* process over content
* internal vs external sourcing of judgment

That’s excellent—but it means the argument will feel “too intellectual” to people who rely on:

* affect
* relatability
* or stereotypes

That’s not your problem, but it *is* the reason some will still resist it.

---

## Overall assessment

**How strong is the argument?**

Conceptually: **very strong**
Internally consistent: **yes**
Grounded in function theory rather than vibes: **absolutely**
Likely to persuade informed typology readers: **high**
Likely to persuade casual MBTI fans: **moderate at best**

You’re not just arguing “Will Smith is ESTP.”

You’re arguing:

> His cognition prioritizes *external sensory reality* → *external emotional calibration* → *internal logical coherence*
> rather than internal values → external execution.

That’s a real claim, and you defend it well.

If I had to summarize your position in one line:

**Will Smith doesn’t ask “Is this me?” first—he asks “What’s happening out here, and how does it work?”**

That’s Se–Fe–Ti, not Se–Fi–Te.

If you want, next we could:

* pressure-test ESFP counterarguments directly
* compare Smith to a *clear* Fi-Se celebrity as contrast
* or refine how to present this argument for a less theory-savvy audience

But as it stands? This is one of the better ESTP cases I’ve seen made for a public figure.

Great question. Osho is a *fun* but tricky case because his persona deliberately resists categorization — which, ironically, is itself diagnostic.


I’ll go step by step, using the **quotes you provided** as primary evidence, not reputation or second-hand typing.


---


## First: eliminate the least fitting types


### ❌ SFP (Se–Fi)


SFPs are spontaneous *in action*, but Osho is spontaneous in **metaphysical stance**, language, and ontology — not sensory indulgence or present-moment pragmatics.


Key mismatch:


* SFP spontaneity = *doing, experiencing, enjoying*
* Osho’s spontaneity = *non-doing, letting go, non-teleology*


> “I simply go floating with the rivers, never asking where it is going.”


That’s **anti-Se control**, not Se immersion. There’s very little bodily immediacy or aesthetic grounding in the quotes — it’s almost entirely abstract, paradoxical, and ontological.


So SFP is out.


---


### ❌ NTP (Ne–Ti)


At first glance, people often think “provocative philosopher → NTP,” but Osho actually *rejects* the NTP mode pretty explicitly.


Evidence:


* Disdain for explanation, models, systems
* Hostility to scholarly answers
* No interest in refining conceptual frameworks


> “Scholarly answers are dangerous; they kill your wonder.”
> “I never ask myself why. All answers are arbitrary.”


An NTP *lives* in “why,” provisional explanations, and playful theorizing. Even when anti-dogmatic, NTPs still **love the game of ideas**.


Osho isn’t playing the game — he’s burning the board.


So NTP doesn’t fit.


---


## Now the real contenders: NFP vs NFJ


Both are plausible. This is where it gets interesting.


---


## Strong evidence **against NFJ**





---


## The strongest fit: **NFP (Ne–Fi)**


Osho fits NFP — especially **ENFP-like** — remarkably well.


### 1. Radical Fi autonomy


His moral stance is *purely internal* and aggressively anti-externalization.


> “Anybody who gives you a belief system is your enemy.”
> “Each person should have his own religion.”


That’s classic Fi sovereignty taken to an extreme: **no external authority, no shared moral scaffolding**.


---


### 2. Romanticization of novelty and inner freedom


Straight out of your NFP description:


> “Remain in wonder if you want mysteries to open up for you.”
> “Answers kill your wonder.”
> “I live spontaneously. I never decide anything beforehand.”


This is textbook **Ne–Fi wonder orientation**:


* Mystery > clarity
* Possibility > resolution
* Experience of meaning > application of meaning


---


### 3. Escapism-from-structure (but spiritualized)


Your NFP section says:


> “There is frequently also an element of escapism in their championing of new ideas.”


Osho reframes escapism as enlightenment:


> “I simply allow things to happen.”
> “I never ask where it is going.”


That’s **withdrawal from Te constraints**, not engagement with them.


---


### 4. Anti-institutional but not analytical


He doesn’t dismantle institutions with logic (NTJ), nor reinterpret them holistically (NFJ).


He **dismisses them existentially**.


> “God has never been born. It is an invention.”
> “Tradition grows the longer someone is dead.”


This is not system-building or critique — it’s **value-based negation**.


---


### 5. Divergent perception + wonder


Your STJ/NFP section nails this:


> 


---


## Final verdict


**Osho fits NFP best**, with a strong lean toward **ENFP** rather than INFP:


* Highly expressive
* Provocative
* Charismatic
* Oriented toward stirring inner awakenings in others
* Less withdrawn than INFP mystics


### Ranking by fit:


1. **NFP (clear winner)**
2. NFJ (distant second)
3. NTP
4. SFP


---


If you want, next we could:


* Contrast Osho with **Jiddu Krishnamurti** (often mistyped as the same type but *very different*)
* Map Osho directly onto **Ne–Fi vs Ni–Fe language markers**
* Or explore why people *mistake* NFP mystics for NFJs so often


Just say the word 🌊

**Conscious Fi often looks “child-like” not because it is immature, but because it is *pre-civilized***—it relates to value and meaning *before* social conditioning, abstraction, or instrumental reasoning step in. That gives it a quality of innocence, wonder, and immediacy that other judging functions tend to sand down.

---

## 1. Fi operates *prior* to social and rational mediation

Every judging function filters raw experience in a different way:

* **Te** → “What works, what’s efficient, what’s justified by results?”

* **Ti** → “What is internally coherent and logically consistent?”

* **Fe** → “What maintains shared values, harmony, and emotional continuity?”

* **Fi** → “What *feels inherently right or wrong to me*, independent of consensus?”

That last clause is the key.

Fi doesn’t first ask:

* *Is this acceptable?* (Fe)

* *Is this defensible?* (Ti)

* *Is this effective?* (Te)

It asks something more primordial:

> *What is the value-tone of this, as it strikes my inner being?*

That question is structurally similar to how **children** relate to the world:

* They respond directly to meaning, beauty, unfairness, cruelty, sincerity.

* They are not yet fluent in rationalizations, etiquette, or institutional justifications.

* Their reactions are often absolute, vivid, and non-negotiable.

So when Fi is conscious and differentiated, it doesn’t regress to childhood—it **retains access to that original evaluative layer** most adults have learned to suppress or translate.

---

## 2. Fi preserves *first-order meaning*, not second-order explanations

Other functions quickly move away from raw affect:

* **Ti** converts experience into concepts.

* **Te** converts it into procedures and outcomes.

* **Fe** converts it into relational signals and norms.

Fi, by contrast, **lingers in first-order experience**:

* the felt wrongness of injustice

* the quiet rightness of authenticity

* the numinous pull of beauty

* the ache of betrayal

* the wonder of something meaningful *without knowing why*

This is why Fi correlates with **wonder** rather than curiosity.

* Curiosity (Ne/Ti) asks: *What is this? What could it become?*

* Wonder (Fi) says: *This matters*—often without being able to justify or articulate it.

Children live almost entirely in first-order meaning.

Fi adults *re-inhabit it consciously*.

---

## 3. “Child-like” ≠ “childish”: the innocence of non-instrumentality

A big reason Fi looks child-like is that it is **non-instrumental**.

Most adult cognition is instrumental:

* feelings are expressed *to achieve* something

* values are argued *to persuade*

* emotions are modulated *to maintain order*

Fi often refuses this trade.

When Fi expresses:

* love, it is not to bind or reassure

* anger, it is not to control

* protest, it is not to negotiate

It expresses because **the value itself demands expression**.

That’s why Jung and later writers keep reaching for words like:

* *innocent*

* *primitive*

* *unmediated*

* *natural*

Children act from feeling without calculation.

So does Fi—**but with adult depth, memory, and moral weight behind it**.

---

## 4. Why other functions don’t show this in the same way

### Fe

Fe socializes feeling early. Even when warm or expressive, it is already shaped by:

* appropriateness

* timing

* reciprocity

* shared emotional grammar

So Fe may look kind or animated—but rarely *naïve* or *raw*.

### Ti

Ti’s “child-like” moments show up as:

* playful abstraction

* logical games

* odd internal consistency

But its affect is filtered out, not preserved.

### Te

Te matures fastest socially.

Its “childish” moments are usually impatience or bluntness—not wonder.

### Ni

Ni can look mystical or distant, but its stance is **oracular**, not innocent.

It sees *through* the world, not *into* it.

Only Fi consistently preserves **direct contact with value-as-felt**, which is why its eruptions can feel like a child speaking eternal truths with adult gravity.

---

## 5. Why Fi wonder often feels moral, poetic, or absolute

Because Fi evaluates through *identity-defining values*, its wonder isn’t neutral.

A child says:

> “That’s not fair.”

An Fi adult says:

> “This violates something essential.”

Same structure—different depth.

That’s also why Fi reactions can feel:

* disproportionate

* uncompromising

* strangely pure

* oddly timeless

They aren’t reactions to the situation alone, but to **the archetypal value the situation touches**.

---

## 6. The paradox: maturity increases the “child-like” quality

Here’s the counterintuitive part:

* **Undeveloped Fi** → reactive, personal, easily wounded

* **Differentiated Fi** → impersonal in a deeper way, almost sacred

As Fi matures, it becomes *less* ego-bound and *more* archetypal.

That actually **increases** the sense of innocence and wonder, because the ego is no longer trying to manage or justify the feeling.

This is why highly developed Fi types often come across as:

* quietly reverent

* morally serious without preaching

* emotionally simple but existentially deep

Very much like a child who somehow knows something ancient.

---

### In one sentence

**Fi correlates with child-like wonder because it preserves direct, pre-civilized contact with value and meaning—responding to the world as something that must be *felt* before it can ever be explained, negotiated, or improved.**