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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1

 * Stéphane (The Science of Sleep)

 * Jonathan Larson (tick tock boom)

 * Anne Shirley

 * Hu Tao (Genshin Impact)

 * Nahida (Genshin Impact)

2

 * SpongeBob

 * Candace (genshin impact)

 * Leslie Knope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ESTJ vs ISTJ

1. Consciousness of Fi and Ne:

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

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

2. Behavioral Manifestations of Fi:

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

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

3. Behavioral Manifestations of Te and Ne:

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

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

Applying this to Rowling (based on the quotes):

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

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

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

Conclusion on Differentiating:

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

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

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

Ne's Role in Considering Different Perspectives:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Difference in How They Lead to Considering Different Perspectives:

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

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

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

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

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

In Conclusion:

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

Se vs Ne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gibson's type discussion

My biggest contention against Se dominant is that he is way too analogical/metaphorical in my opinion. Se is usually quite straightforward and literal in communication:

Gibson: "If you can maintain a neutrality [while approaching a character] ... then [you can] branch out from that, add on ... It's like Mr. Potato Head, slap whatever you want on it, a mustache or, you know, different attributes of a character. It's much easier to paint on a bare canvas than one that's already got a picture on it." 

Gibson: "I guess it gets almost to a question of like kind of a religion. Mecca for filmmakers is this industry here, it's where there's the biggest pool, it's the watering hole where everyone comes to see, to measure up, to include themselves in the pool, their talent, and that collective thing. It's like you go to the smorgasbord to feed your need to work and your need to tell stories and your need to express yourself [in] whatever form that is."

 

Gibson: "I've often felt that I've sat there and I have felt the knife slipped firmly in between my shoulder blades and tried to have it shoved through the other side through my heart, and I've actually felt the whole thing and I've gone, 'Ah! Where till next week?' you know, or I'll think, 'fuck', and you'll resent it for a little while, then you have to let it go, otherwise you'll eat yourself alive, and I think it takes that kind of cockroach resilience to survive in this town."

 

Gibson: "This is what I mean by actually starting to swim up or downstream with the rest of the salmon, ... if you stay here long enough, yeah, you'll find yourself doing that."

Gibson: "[Rising to overnight stardom is] like being a blind man walking into the woods. It takes a while to come to terms with that, this new world that you're having to exist in."

Gibson: "[Being a first time director is] like being tossed in a very big body of water and told to swim to shore. You have a general idea of which direction the shore is, but you may not get there for a long time."

Gibson: “[Improvising with Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg] felt like a spectator at a Beijing Ping Pong match with the flip-flapping back and forth between them that I was trying to keep up with."

Gibson: "I could tell jokes and stories, and make stories up and convince people of things that weren't true."

Interviewer: "You were a liar."

Gibson: "Kind of, yeah. A great liar, yeah, a good liar."

 

Alex Simon: "His quick wit was palpable, with a mind that moved with the speed and precision of a Ferrari racing engine. Gibson was intellectual."

van der Hoop on Ne

If intuition is combined with an extroverted attitude, then the individual will form intuitive judgments of what goes on in the outer world and will be apt suddenly to discover connections between things without being able to explain them in a very elaborated manner. Extroverted intuitive perceptions and the actions and expressions resulting from them are sometimes surprisingly justified later on by events or by an indirect process of reasoning.

While sensation is chiefly concerned with the empirical actuality of things, intuition sees what is of noetic and ideational importance. Intuition is especially acute in discovering all the various possibilities of ideational development and activity. Even in cases where intuition is not the leading function, it is often capable of finding a solution where no other function could succeed.

Jung writes of intuition that if it predominates, all the ordinary circumstances of life seem to be enclosures out of which intuition must find a way. It is often seeking for new paths and new developments of life in an outward direction; all circumstances soon appear to the intuitive mind as a prison or as an oppression, which causes a longing for liberation.

Things in the outer world seem at times to acquire an exaggerated value when they can be made use of for the purpose of a solution, liberation, or the discovery of new possibilities. But as soon as they have served as a bridge or ladder, they seem to have lost all value and are cast aside as unnecessary lumber. A fact is only valued insofar as it may contain new potentialities that may outgrow the original fact and serve, in turn, to liberate the individual.

Possibilities that arise suddenly become compelling motives to the intuitive mind, and it will sacrifice for them everything else. In contrast with the advantages of this rich variety of possible activities, we find the disadvantages of such qualities as changeableness, fickleness, and lack of harmony.

My Typings (that's not on IDRlabs)

Disclaimer: The quotes shown here are not intended as standalone proofs (though a few of them are), but rather as extracted data from a specific context, such as an interview, from which we intuit a given function-attitude.

Morrisette: "I play with words linguistically like

they're paint."

Morrisette: "There was a time in my life, and

still an element of it now, where the only things

I wanted to do were things that scared me

[because in doing that] I felt alive, I felt like I

was transcending something, that I wasn't

stuck somewhere."

Morrisette: "Everything that happens is 

temporary for me."

The Atlantic: “Her verbosity [and] twee

wordplay [are] hard to resist. … She’s as

much of a storyteller ... as she is a

performer, which is why that sense of

identifying with her angst … is so sharp.”

 

Waltz: "Whether it’s a job, a relationship,

even a hobby that you follow for your own

amusement: eventually, you get to the

point where perseverance is what’s

needed."

Waltz: "I don’t like improvisation. I am not

a writer and creating a script is a writer’s

job. … I wouldn’t like it if an author came

up and told me how I should play a scene.

… I am not very good at it!"

Waltz: "[I do acting because] it's my
profession, no different than it is for any
other profession.”

Waltz: "I try to follow the lead of the writer,

and the script ... and find what's in the

case at hand and not so much in the

generalization of, for example, the genre

or the actor's persona. I really make an

effort to stick to the individual character

because it serves a very specific purpose.

And without the specificity you have more

or less nothing."

 

Waltz: "I think it is absolutely ridiculous that actors go on their bonus 

DVD interviews and explain what they were doing. That’s not what an 

actor does. ... It’s completely counterproductive for an actor to talk about 

his part."

Waltz: "I don’t like talking about [my roles]. If you go into a restaurant 

and you have been served an exquisite meal, you don’t need to know 

how the chef felt, or when he chose the vegetables on the market. I

always feel a little like I would pull the rug out from under myself if I 

were to I speak about the background of my work."

Waltz: "When Jochen Rindt was racing ... I remember everything about 

his crash; I remember exactly where I was, all the details. I’m not

particularly into motor racing, but I am into the tyre changes, the pit

stops. It is the most incredible thing to watch. That’s perfect

co-ordination between people and all their motor senses, every

movement perfectly rehearsed. Each person is 100 per cent perfect and

then it’s ten people together! The efficiency is breathtaking. ... this is ten 

people doing something which takes effort, concentration, knowledge 

and practice. It’s like playing a musical instrument."

Waltz: "I have a less romantic and idealistic approach to acting."

Waltz: "[Dialogue in film] should be dealt with with equal attention and 

diligence [as the visuals], but sadly it isn’t. You only have to listen to

people talk on the street, unless they’re talking this gibberish that seems 

to be the main mode of communication now."

Norton: "It's everybody's duty [and] social

responsibility to ... not be unpleasant."

Norton: "It is weird when you see people

without the 'wanting to be liked' gene, like you

see something like Simon Cowell or Anne

Robinson who [are] just quite happy to be

loathed. It's a weird thing isn't it."

Allen: "I never really liked school ... I didn't

really like sort of authority, and I kind of felt

like I wanted to educate myself, really. I just

knew I was never gonna be at a job that

required me to have a degree."

 

Allen: “[I'm open] to any opportunities that

come my way."

 

Allen: "I definitely hope I'm touching a nerve,

because I think that's what I like to do, is to

get people thinking."

NY Time: "She [has this] kind of irresistible

frankness that has gotten her, time and

again, in trouble."

 

 

Plaza: "The only thing I don't like about [my

previous roles] is if it prevented me from doing

other things, and it has become a bit of a

challenge, because people are stupid and

afraid to take risks."

Plaza: "The most fun part [is] trying to really

find the truth in every moment so that you're

not making these wild leaps of logic."

Plaza: "You can't be fully prepared for 

something like [acting] because you don't

know how it's going to feel [until] you're

actually in the moment doing it. ... [You] just

[have] to kind of do it."

Plaza: "I never had a time in my life where I

thought 'I don’t know what I want to do'. It was

always me saying, 'I know what I want to do

and I want to do it now!'"

 

Harper's BAZAAR: "[She has a] straight-

talking attitude. ... She cuts through the

usual obsequiousness of what can be."

 

Plaza: "Scenes where I'm breaking down or having really crazy

stuff happening to me [are] hard. I've not had to have all of those

emotions coming out of me. I'm not a super emotional person."

 

Plaza: "I’m just in the moment at all times.”

Plaza: “I guess whatever my character has to say, I have to say. I mean, 

what are words anyway? They’re just words: ‘chair’, ‘lawn’, ‘fuck’!”

Clark Gregg: “She’s fearless, she does it in a way that’s so humiliating 

and so embarrassing and so completely brave that you can’t help but

love her. And as someone acting with her, can’t help but go there with 

her.”

 

 

 

Burr: "You have to be up here [in your head] and think logical, and not be in your heart."

Burr: "[Stand up is] like, This is what I’m doing now. ... I obviously learned from a bunch of masters, but it always flowed into me. When you find what you’re supposed to do there’s not a lot of thinking. It just is."

Burr: "Life is all about getting knocked down and learning how to come back up even harder. Not being stupid about it and keep running into the same wall the same way, you adjust and try to get over it."

Burr: "I feel like we live in this ridiculously over-sensitive time where people get offended over nothing."

Harding: “Honesty is the great essential.

It exalts the individual citizenship, and,

without honesty, no man deserves the

confidence of the people in private

pursuit or in public office.”

Steven J. Rubenzer: “[He was] usually

cheerful and pliable.”

Steven J. Rubenzer: “Harding always tried

to maintain a positive approach.”

Steven J. Rubenzer: “He was decidedly

not ‘contemplative, intellectual,

introspective, meditative, philosophical.’”

Steven J. Rubenzer: "Harding's enthusiasm

and optimism were his real assets as

president."

Steven J. Rubenzer: "Harding had great difficulty resisting

temptation and was not inhibited or restrained. Not liking to do

things alone, he very much enjoyed big parties, spending time

with people, and being part of a crowd. Definitely not known as

cold or distant, he welcomed close relationships and was warm

and self-disclosing. He was outgoing and friendly toward

strangers, 'casual, easygoing, informal, natural, relaxed,' and

made friends easily. Harding clearly saw himself as a lighthearted

person and very plainly showed it when he was happy. His

feelings showed in his facial and body language; his gestures

were adroit. He often felt very energetic and vigorous."

Steven J. Rubenzer: "Harding and Clinton ... were warm and

self-disclosing, outgoing, friendly to those they just met, and not

detached, secretive, or reserved. Each enjoyed being part of a

crowd and showed his emotions in his facial and body language.

Neither had a reputation for being distant or cold, nor was

'bashful, shy, timid.' They preferred to do things with others rather

than alone and made friends easily."

Steven J. Rubenzer: "Virtually nobody considered him cold or

calculating. Nor was he defensive or lacking in humor about his

faults. He empathized easily with others, believed most people

were honest and trustworthy, and assumed the best about those

he met."

Natasha Bedingfield

"As a performer ... you have to just be who you are."

"I want people to have fun. We need to let our hair down sometimes, because we get so serious."

"I enjoy the fact that you get to try different styles."

"I like clothes that are flattering on your figure - they can be designer stuff or not you know. It’s quite fun to mix the high street with vintage - maybe one designer item or something. ... You can finish up mixing and matching a lot with other things."

 

 

Scott: “I want to live big. I want to laugh big, I

 want to love big, I want life to know I was here 

… and somehow make a difference in the 

process.”

Scott: “Don't let your character change color

with your environment. Find out who you are

and let it stay its true color.”

Scott: “[I] want to live every moment to the

fullest.”

Scott: “Bubbly. Perky. Outgoing. That’s what

grownups always say about me.”

Scott: “I [always] wanted to be on the front lines. I wanted to be there, 

right in the middle of everything. You know, I’m the girl who loves to 

make grand entrances. I’ll always choose vibrant, bold colors over 

boring pastels and given a choice, I’d rather go somewhere than stay 

home. … Rather laugh than cry.”

Scott: “When it comes to having a relationship with God, I could sit here 

and tell you what to do and what to say and how to pray, but where will 

that get you if you just sit there? … Best thing I can tell you is, go after 

God. … Christianity is not a label, but a lifestyle, something that has to 

be lived from the inside out.”

Scott: “I hate cliques. I’m not into being labeled in any way. I don’t like 

wearing jeans that have somebody’s name on my back pocket. Forget 

Khakis and shirts with little emblems and sweatshirts with big fat names 

across the front.”

Scott: “I wanted to be a high-impact, make-a-difference, love-the-world-

and-turn-the-tide kind of Christian. Not a wimpy, polite, no big deal, 

politically-correct-and-don’t-make-waves kind of Christian.”

Dido: "I really feel things deeply and that’s 

why I write songs."

Dido: “I write based on how I see and feel

things ... It’s all about transferring how I see

 the world into a song."

Dido: "To me a song is just about the flow of

it, it just has to flow and me to never notice

in a way, it has to feel whole and real.”

The Guardian: "[Her parents were] angry at

her lack of self-discipline."

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."

Dido: "I [am] very clear on what [I] like, and what [I] don’t."

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."