Why Shakespeare is ENFP

Why Mary-Kate Olsen is ISFP

Se sticks with the object while Ne bypasses the object to get to its associations and possibilities. Of course, either way, the function would be a bit muted in Mary-Kate Olsen as a result of it being her auxiliary (and her not repressing Si/Ni). But where is the evidence of Ne? Based on all the interviews I've watched of her, she was not associative, tangential, or anything you would expect of an NP type. She was far more down-to-earth and grounded than an INFP. She didn't speak about the abstract (N) so much as the concrete (S), and wasn't intellectual nor concerned in finding an 'escape' from the physical world, but rather was oriented with reality and being 'in the world.' She's not someone who connected the dots in a associative way, and if she really did, then it rarely made way in her manner of communication.

I know I'm mostly focused on general trends of conscious flow rather than presenting an exhaustive list of specific examples compared to what I usually do, and that was for 2 reasons. One of them is because I'm lazy at the moment but the other (more important) reason is that ideally the latter comes and naturally falls into place from understanding the former anyway. In a later date, if motivation allows, I might bring up more concrete examples with all the interviews I already watched but not now unfortunately :)

Regarding the quotes you used in Olsen's page... Now, I know many of the quotes themselves on the site are not meant to be slam-dunk arguments or direct evidence per se (as I'm aware the quotes only come after you concluded on your research), but rather the pieces of data drawn from a context (i.e. interview or book) from which we intuitively fill in the blank a given function-attitude or type vibe. But at the same time, many of your quote pages also have sets of examples illustrating function use in a more direct fashion, and in this guise, some of them represent a kind of aggregate portrait of a particular type (especially the ones that have more quotes). So believe me, I'm not here to argue in bad faith, but I will look at the quotes you made for her INFP page and annotate why they aren't really anymore indicative of INFP than ISFP.

First I will get the obvious out of the way (note that all the quotes I will use down below are from her IDRlabs page, quotes that were meant to illustrate INFP above all, so if contradictions against the INFP is found via those quotes, then it is telling sign). Many of the quotes on her page are meant to represent a preference for P over J (comparing her to Ashley), and those specific quotes were never meant to be anything but a showcase of a preference for Pe over Pi/Je (which fits both INFPs and ISFPs). So let's just showcase them now to get it out of the way:

Mary-Kate: "I've never really had much consistency in my life."

Mary-Kate: "[Ashley and I] are very different ... especially when you know us. ... Ashley's more of a Type A personality, I would say."

Mary-Kate: "[Ashley] is more organized than I am."

Ryan O'Connell: "Mary-Kate [is] a free spirit."

Vanessa Hudgens: "[Mary-Kate] is surprisingly very laid-back."

Dirk Standen: "Mary-Kate [is] the ... funnier one."

Adam Cooper: "[In the movie 'New York Minute' where Ashley's character is a straight-A student and Mary-Kate plays a rebellious one] the girls are playing extreme and enhanced versions of themselves."

[Asked about her and Ashley's roles in their clothing line:]

Mary-Kate: "[I'm] more of a creative [person]. I don't worry about making the deals and ... doing the actual deals."

Vogue Magazine: "[As directors of their clothing line] Ashley is often considered as being the financial brain, while Mary-Kate the creative."

Okay so we get the point, Ashley is more J whilst Mary-Kate is more P (not just P but mixture of repressed Te indications too, so IFP, but mostly P). So what about Se vs Ne then based solely on the quotes that are provided in her IDRlabs typing page? Well let's take a look:

Olsen: "I'm not great at communicating my vision - I think I use fragments instead of full sentences. Or when I try to explain ... [it comes out] wrong."

I get it, Ne is generally thought of as scatterbrained. And the intellect of Ne is indeed scattershot in most cases, but another tendency of Ne also happens to be being good at verbal self-expression in real-time (albeit, this applies most to ENPs but INPs, being auxiliary, also fit this). In one of your comments regarding Bob Dylan being ISFP you said (in reply to a comment that posted a link to a interview), "It is ironic that the one interview you highlight above the others had Dylan repeatedly faulting words and verbal expression." As you know, ISFPs tend to find verbal real-time self-expression difficult as a result of the weird Fi-Se-Ni combination. So overall, while the quote itself isn't conclusive, it sounds more ISFP than INFP if I had to choose one.

Mary-Kate: "There are just some really beautiful people in the world. When you're walking down the street, or you're at a restaurant, someone catches your eye because they have their own look. It goes way beyond what they're wearing - into their mannerisms, the way they smile, or just the way they hold themselves."

Now this quote actually sounds more ISFP than INFP to me, it really sounds Fi-Se. She's viewing the world through the lens of their internal sentiments (Fi) and imbuing it to the object, so to speak, but she sticks with the object (being very focused on the clothes, their smile, mannerisms, or whatever) rather than bypassing it to connect it with something else. It's very reminiscent of many of the ISFPs on the site such as Pharrell Williams saying "Sometimes you've just got to put your pride aside and be quiet so that you can absorb not only what a person is saying but how they are saying it - their energy, their body language. It's all for a reason." Contrast Olsen's quote with Brando's (INFP) quote, "I used to sit ... looking out the window at people walking by. I saw them for perhaps two or three seconds before they disappeared. ... In that flick of time I studied their faces, the way they carried their heads and swung their arms; I tried to absorb who they were - their history, their job, whether they were married, troubled or in love." Unlike Olsen, he bypasses the object to uncover or imagine the possibilities.

Olsen: "I think that creating different environments is an art in itself. ... Thinking of someone like Tim Burton and his films - he has had his own singular vision."

I guess this quote is meant to illustrate a preference for INFP-like worldbuilding because Tim Burton was mentioned... I guess? I don't know the context of the quote as "different environments" can apply to both Se and Ne with their general desire for novelty, and in your site's ISFP description it says "ISFPs are still likely to have an extremely well-developed sense of what they like and don't like (indeed, they often have a uniqueness of taste that others tend to envy). For this reason it is especially important for the ISFP that they have the freedom to shape their personal environment as they see fit", so it could fit ISFP too in many respects regarding the "I think that creating different environments is an art in itself" part of the quote.

Mary-Kate: "It's always fun to [become] friends with anyone who has a different profession, a different life, it opens doors. All my friends ... do such different creative things. It's so awesome."

Sounds Ne-ish in showcasing interest in the novelty of others perspectives, so if we're looking at it strictly in terms of Se vs Ne, then sure, it's a bit more Ne on the whole. But in this case, I think it's too little evidence to definitively say it's Ne, not so much as it's "not Ne" so much as "it could be a bunch of other things". It could be the child-like sense of wonder that is often found in Fi types, it could be just P in general as Se too is a out possibilities but just of a more physical nature, etc.

Ashley [to Mary-Kate:] "I remember years ago, when I swatted a fly, you said, 'What if it had a brother or a sister? Do you know how sad the other would be?'"

I know on the surface it sounds Fi+Ne but I think this quote is just high F. I know many typology enthusiasts (not saying you are guilty of this) seem to think that only types with Ne and Fe that thinks of other perspectives, and while this may make some sense in theory, but in practice this doesn't seem to hold true (though Ne and Fe probably are thinking of other perspectives in a more quantitative amount). Fi in general, for example, empathizes by putting themselves into the shoes of another person, imagining themselves as the other person (or animal or whatever) via looking within themselves. The quote (in itself) could also indicate Fe too, but because I agree that she is Fi and not Fe, I'll just brush over that part. From that point of view, the quote just seems to indicate a strong preference for Feeling over Thinking (sentimental and partial over the unsentimental and impartial).

Ryan O'Connell: "Ashley is the smart serious one ... and Mary-Kate is the kooky one."

I get it, Ne is seen as eccentric but it doesn't say much cogntiively about someone if one is described as kooky, it could be Ne, it could also be Ni singular perspectives that reject the physical world, could be Ti idiosyncratic internal logic, could be Fi's following its idiosyncratic sentiments and values, could be Se spontaneity, you get what I mean...

Christopher Bollen: "[Mary-Kate] walks quietly into rooms and gives you her full attention when you talk to her. And you always leave kind of wishing you'd hugged her more."

Both Fi dominants are generally good listeners (so "giving you her full attention when you talk to her" applies to both IFP types) and I guess many individuals who are Fi dominant can be seen as cuddly as a result Fi "live and let live" attitude coupled with their more sentiment-based focus as a result of being Feeling dominant. The "cuddly" part is stereotypical (so not universal by any stretch) but it is something to take into account. 

Chris Hemsworth

At first glance one might assume Chris Hemsworth is a Se dominant type because he's built, athletic, and likes to surf. But if one actually puts these preconceived notions aside and reads his interviews, one will find a preference for Fe above all else. As Boye Akinwande of Fe said, "as an extroverted judgment function [Fe] seeks an ideal in which the people and cultures that the person cares about are aligned on the basis of sentiment. They desire mutual adherence to a consistent set of principles in order to truly attain the ideal and ultimately want to situate themselves and others as part of the common bond required for an ontologically harmonious order." 

How does this apply to Hemsworth? He is less interested in freely pursuing what one might call "the current unordered object" (Se) and much more interested in cementing himself as part of a community in accordance with a constant set of sentiment-based ideals (Fe). 

Hemsworth: "I think we need to pay more attention to the idea of collaboration and unity, and understand that life isn’t about us as individuals; it’s about how we’re all just together sharing a space no matter where we’re from, what we look like, and what our beliefs are. We have to realise that we’re all in this together and allow ourselves to be compassionate, kind, understanding, and supportive." (Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lifestyleasia.com/sg/sponsored/interview-chris-hemsworth-boss-bottled-edp-man-of-today/amp/)

Hemsworth: “We trick ourselves into thinking we can do it all alone and it’s just me against the world, and so on. Then you realise, no, we are nothing without each other, and we are nothing without connection and collaboration, and unity and community. ... [And I hope that] we keep that in mind – [that] we appreciate those things [and] don’t take them for granted.” (Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gq.com.au/culture/entertainment/chris-hemsworth-on-the-secret-to-his-success-its-all-about-looking-for-new-challenges/image-gallery/997d99f05f25870da7e3cfea10166d9c%3famp)

Hemsworth: "[I like] to bring together a community of like-minded people [who can have] a positive and beneficial impact." (Source: https://www.jamesgillcomedy.com/post/chris-hemsworth-interview)

[Interviewer: What is your personal definition of the Man of Today?]

Hemsworth: "Somebody who lives a life with integrity, honesty, compassion, and kindness [and] understands his own place in the world, and makes sure he has a positive impact on the people around him." (Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lifestyleasia.com/sg/sponsored/interview-chris-hemsworth-boss-bottled-edp-man-of-today/amp/)

Hemsworth: "People who put themselves on the line and sacrifice their own safety for the greater good and for others, and ... whose concern is the welfare for other people instead of the individual, are inspiring and important."

Hemsworth: "[I like it when] feedback has been hugely positive. It’s a nice reminder that we’re doing something right and can make a difference somewhere." (Source: https://www.jamesgillcomedy.com/post/chris-hemsworth-interview)

Hemsworth's ultimate goal is to situate himself and others as part of a collective mind via sentiment as an end in itself. While an ESP can be a team player, they certainly aren't likely at all to frame their primary worldview around the social fabric itself—unity, shared values, mutual adherence, interdependence, and community—to this extent. 

And unlike Se, which (as Akinwande put it again) "doesn’t seek to shape the current object, but to be aware of it in the most direct way possible and to magnify it", Hemsworth seems more concerned with, as Pierce describes of Je, "seek[ing] to conform objects to a certain standard", but as is the case with F, with regard to sentiments (Feeling) than mechanics (Thinking). In other words, he is more concerned with attempting to standardize the world toward a harmonious ideal (Fe) than with feeling out the current situation out to the fullest and allowing that to primarily dictate his next course (Se).

To those that still doubt ESFJ, take a look at what directors who worked with Hemsworth had to say:

The Guardian: “'When I met [Chris Hemsworth],' [Bart] Layton says. 'I was expecting a very different kind of human, who was more classically alpha [but] what you find [in him actually] is someone who’s really thoughtful and sensitive ... in the way we all are.'” (Source: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2026/feb/03/chris-hemsworth-interview-crime-101-thor-marvel-alzheimers)

Tom Barbor-Might: "He’s a surprisingly sensitive person. We had conversations like, 'I’d love to do something together.' I pitched him what became an episode of Limitless, about facing your fears and during the making of that episode, there was a discovery that he was predisposed to Alzheimer’s. Rather than running away from that, he [ran] towards it and was like maybe there's something we can do that would help people." (Source: https://www.disneyplus.com/explore/articles/chris-hemsworth-a-road-trip-to-remember-director-interview)

Despite people expecting a sort of stereotypical "alpha", they instead got a sensitive and thoughtful man who sought to help others. While this point alone doesn't disprove ESP (as "athletic alpha" is a stereotype that DOESN'T apply to many Se doms), taking this point in conjunction with the first batch of quotes makes it seem extremely likely he is an EFJ rather than ESP.

If we agree that Fe dominant is Hemsworth bread-and-butter, his modus operandi (in other words his dominant function) then it becomes a question on Si vs Ni regarding his auxiliary. To me he seems more Si than Ni as his perception seems more grounded, down-to-earth, and based on experience than the more abstract, intellectual, pie-in-the-sky Ni:

Hemsworth: "For me, life is about experience and being a good person."

Hemsworth: "I'd like to think I'm a normal sort of guy."

Why Larry Ellison is ESTP

First off I agree that Ellison is a Se dominant type and not ENTJ or whatever type others think:

Mike Wilson: "Ellison possessed no vision of the future, no great plan to conquer the software industry. His sole motivation was to be his own boss." [Source: https://archive.org/details/differencebetwee00wils_0/page/58/mode/1up]

Mike Wilson: "A year later Ellison made Overstreet his executive assistant. She was everything he wasn't: punctual, detail-oriented, thorough, discreet in her communications. Ellison never had an organized day in his life (in that way he was a typical entrepreneur)." [Source: https://archive.org/details/differencebetwee00wils_0/page/114/mode/1up]

Now let's move onto Ti vs Te:

Even if we do consider him being a Te-heavy ESFP, out of the 2 Thinking functions, he seems to prefer Ti because he places more emphasis about opening up new, personal inquiries via what makes sense to him rather than working with accepted theories. Even from the quotes from your site:

Ellison: "The most important aspect of my personality as far as determining my success goes; has been my questioning conventional wisdom, doubting experts and questioning authority. While that can be painful in your relationships with your parents and teachers, it's enormously useful in life."

(One could also say this fits Se too with the emphasis of it being a practical life lesson)

Mike Wilson: "'I was not suited to being able to work my way up the corporate ladder.' He had the same problems in business that he had experienced in school: 'If people asked me to do things that didn't make sense, I just couldn't do [them]. I couldn't start my own school, but I could start my own company.'" [Source: https://archive.org/details/differencebetwee00wils_0/page/58/mode/1up]

Furthermore, you guys said, "As for being potentially perceived as a crank, since the Ti type uses internal ideas that are derived from his own consciousness to evaluate external occurrences" which fits the following quote below.  

Ellison: "When you innovate, you've got to be prepared for people telling you that you are nuts."

Now, one might say that because ESFPs prefer Fi over Te (and don't have Fe in their stack) that therefore all these quotes can be chalked up to Fi personal sentiment but I think of the 2 Feeling functions he prefers Fe over Fi.

To step outside of talking about Ellison for a moment I'll talk about Fe in ESTPs in general. Fe in ESTPs can manifest in multiple ways but one of the most common ways it manifests is having "a rakish charm to them" (as you guys said). To extend beyond just "rakish charm" though is that Fe in ESTPs also grants them an awareness of external sentiments, in which they use can use to navigate and leverage. Ti/Fe navigates this Se real-time awareness of the physical world in the ESTP, bottom-lining and exploiting situations in an unsentimental manner, but not without some practical understanding of the social world. This Se-Fe comination (in that order) can make one very opportunistic, sly, and good at working with people (in underhanded ways), and being able to cause a external sentimental effect that they are looking for, which they refine the techniques silently with Ti. For example, FDR, LBJ, and Trump fit this perfectly:

Rubenzer (on Franklin D. Roosevelt): "As outstanding as FDR's upbeat temperament was his clear willingness to trick people to get his way. He prided himself on his ability to handle others shrewdly and was willing to manipulate people. Crafty and sly, he was able to persuade others to his viewpoint but would also employ bullying or flattery. Not surprisingly, some perceived him as egotistical and self-centered. He would bend or break rules to his best advantage. He was alert to clues that reveal how others are thinking or feeling and seemed aware of the impression he made on others. Yet he wouldn't let others know if he did not like them."

Rubenzer (on Lyndon B. Johnson): "He used strong-arm tactics, flattery, and trickery to get his way more than any other president. He showed an exceptional willingness to distort facts or lie, and was markedly deceitful, unscrupulous, underhanded, cunning, and sly. He prided himself on his ability to 'handle' people, and he was highly persuasive, using virtually any means to his ends."

Peter Theil (on Trump): "He's very charismatic, but it's because he sort of knows exactly what to say to different people to put them at ease.”

Scott Adams (on Trump): "I noticed in [Donald Trump] the skills that I've developed over decades for persuasion but at a higher level than I've ever seen. He's the most persuasive living human that I've ever experienced. And I mean that in terms of actual technique. He's full of technique and it's all the time."

Jon Stewart (on Trump): "He knows how to channel the frustrations of an audience. He knows how to read a room. He knows what the room is feeling and he can articulate it back to them and they understand it."

Ellison fits this dynamic:

Mike Wilson: "He had a lot in common with Churchill: ... both were witty, insatiably curious, and charming when it suited them. ... He shared at least one other trait with Churchill: Both men were masterful manipulators of public opinion who were motivated largely by self-interest. In 1898 the young Churchill wrote his mother, 'I do not care so much for the principles I advocate as for the impression which my words produce & the reputation they give me. This sounds very terrible. But you must remember that we do not live in the days of Great Causes.' Ellison's story about his college career was Churchillian in that sense." [Source: https://archive.org/details/differencebetwee00wils_0/page/33/mode/1up]

(Both Churchill and Ellison focus on external sentimental effects as opposed to internal sentimental effects, Fe over Fi in this case)

Mike Wilson: "He could dazzle people with his insights and madden them with his lies. He was [someone] who could delight audiences with his colorful speeches." [Source: https://archive.org/details/differencebetwee00wils_0/page/9/mode/1up]

Mike Wilson: "Ellison's charms were such that even the aggrieved pastor said he still liked him. As a friend of Charles Foster Kane's says in Citizen Kane, '[It's] not that Charlie was ever brutal. He just did brutal things.'" [Source: https://archive.org/details/differencebetwee00wils_0/page/9/mode/1up]

Mike Wilson: "Ellison succeeded not as a technologist but as a marketeer. He did not have any special convictions about technology; Silicon Valley was where he ended up."

[Source: https://archive.org/details/differencebetwee00wils_0/page/103/mode/1up]

Mike Wilson: "Ellison somehow knew that he could sell relational technology by talking about it in a negative way, which was an example of his uncanny sense of communication and marketing."

[Source: https://archive.org/details/differencebetwee00wils_0/page/102/mode/1up]

Also, didn't those quotes above also fit your sites description of ESTPs to a tee? (Not directly about cognitive functions, I know, but still, a description, while not the end-all-be-all, is still something to consider): "ESTPs tend to have a relaxed and open attitude and they often have a strong charisma. They tend to have a way with people where they are extremely shrewd at connecting with them and convincing them of their plans. One can often find an ESTP at the center of a large network of friends and business connections, which the ESTP can draw on for making his latest plan come true. ... Their directness and ease of expression makes them appear self-confident and convincing in the eyes of others. Colorful and compelling, ESTPs are in many ways equipped with that extra savvy which allows them to do well in business as well as in life. ... [They have a] charming exterior."

Taking it all together he seems to prefer Fe over Fi. Note for the quotes above, not just the slyness (which any type can admittedly be, albeit some types are more prone to it than others) but also the lack of sentiment-based convictions. Now, a counterargument would be his supposedly Fi-like statements such as:

Ellison: "Bill and I used to be friends a long time ago. That was before he turned mean and ran Netscape out of business. I think what Bill did to Netscape was appalling, so I don't talk to Bill anymore." [Source: https://youtu.be/1cYy-b7qfCE?si=BeqJFi4Dizsa64i8&t=449]

Sounds like a Fi-like conviction value judgment right? Well immediately after he said that in the interview it cut away to Mike Wilson who then said:

Mike Wilson: "I think it's true that Bill tried to run Netscape out of business, but believe me, Larry Ellison didn't take it personally. I think he gets a kick out of Bill Gates and that he loves having this person to have a rivalry with. There's no ill feeling between Bill Gates and Larry Ellison; that's completely manufactured for the press." [Source: https://youtu.be/1cYy-b7qfCE?si=9IBriQeu-kAAzASd&t=464]

So taking this into account it's best not to take what Ellison says at face value. Obviously when it comes to typing people, one has to infer which statements are directly indicative of their cogntive functions or not, which is not easy as one has to consider context and overall patterns as opposed to one off instances, beliefs, instances of potential insincerity, etc. (which is why many people who get into typology end up being terrible at applying the theory).

Furthermore, the quote below could also indicate a lack of Fi:

Mike Wilson: "Ellison was not one to make public displays of deep emotion — or private ones either. Whatever he really felt about Bob's death was bound to stay locked inside him, a thundering heart in a stainless steel cage." [Source: https://archive.org/details/differencebetwee00wils_0/page/270/mode/1up]

Of course, I already know the counterargument, "the quote is Fi bro as it is about protecting his inner sensitivity that he keeps to himself." But from my observation (and I preface that this is not universal) many ESFPs are transparent regarding their inner warmth, sort of like a "wear heart on sleeve" type of person. But even ignoring that general tendency, a T type's relationship with emotions (and I know emotions don't equate with Feeling in a Jungian sense but bear with me) can often manifest as keeping them "locked inside ... a thundering heart in a stainless steel cage" as a result of the correlation (not that I didn't say causation) of T types tendency to suppress emotion as a result of T's less sentiment-based oriented nature than F.

Addressing counterarguments:

One might say that his "self-exploration" is indicative of Fi and while that sounds Fi-ish at first glance I think the quote is moreso saying "I like to test my own limits" which is definitely not unusual for ESTPs at all.

Secondly, one might say that him defending his friends in spite of public sentiment is evidence for Fi. And to that I would say that while it certainly can be an indication of Fi, it's not that out of the box for an ESTP to have enough integrity to do that (relative to how much "integrity" one consideration Ellison to have). Real-life ESTPs are not cartoony slippery conmen, even the actual ESTP cons :P

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."

Frank Ocean: "I was just trying to articulate visually the feeling of being numb—like the feeling of somebody trying to love you but you can't feel it, like the feeling of wanting to feel something that you can't feel. And so it's numbing, and a lot of things can cause that numbing. And in the video, though, it was like some sort of topical anesthetic and a little bit of special effects." 

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).