Larry David can also be an attention whore, look at his Tonight Show interviews; it's part of his act. In the past I could be one too, when I was acting a role for a job I had. Those kind of clues are hard to use to figure out if somebody is a type.
The only reliable way is to see the functions. First question, do you see a prevalence of Ti?
OK, so far, the ISFP on personalitycafe has said that he's definitely
not an ISFP and has posted a video of Brad Pitt. He's supposed to be an ISFP and he does say a lot of Fi things, like he feels his way around the character and it just felt real etc.
No ISTP has turned up yet. So..... I'll provide my analysis of the following boring interview. I can spot some Ti, Ne, Si in it, but also some things that contradict Ti, Ne, Si. I probably wouldn't be able to spot dom Fi (ISFP) or aux Se (ISFP and ISTP) without help. So they may very well be there but I'm not seeing them because I'm focusing on what I
can identify.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEXEuF3LHbQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTJ8Blu1bz0&feature=relmfu
contra INTP:
- says he has no interest in the future, maybe some INTPs would be more interested in the future? But then my INTP friends never talk about the future that much. idk, what about you guys??
- seems very sure that aliens don't exist
pro INTP:
- rambling (
Ne?)
- uses imagination to write
- "argues" with the writers.... gives them notes on the character and doesn't just accept them as an authority straight away
- claims not to remember much from the series, but has very detailed
memory of Borg scene (
Si?)
- "idea" that data could have hearing sensors in the back of his head (
Ti?-
Ne?)
- "idea" about crew ending up in 1930s studio (
Ti?-
Ne?)
- on data's 'multiple techniques': What does the woman want, not what
he's able to do. (a little bit of Fe? + Ti arguing about what the real nature of the question should be)
- wrote story for film: not asked to write emotional scenes, but how to get
characters out of dangers (strategy?
Ti?)
- interviewer describes Data as a sexless android. "Well, I wouldn't say
sexless, I'd say highly sexy, but
unsexual." (
Ti arguing about
definitions?)
- creating "B4" (dumb replacement for Data who's like George Bush): grew
up in Texas and had a lot of information and background (
Ne? Si?)
about the Bushes. Not everyone who grows up in a particular place knows
all about the politicians there or thinks they are somehow related to a
movie character who has nothing to do with politics?
- "Star Trek fans are Star Trek fans, all over the world, wherever they are.
They are very similar." (
Ne)
- sees
several threads running through the fandom (
Ne)
- Star Trek philosophy embraces outsiders, doesn't judge people (
Ti?) and
goes on to ramble about NASA people all being Star Trek fans (
Ne)
- it's ironic that minority of Star Trek fans have embraced it as a religion,
Gene Roddenberry didn't want to create a religion like L. Ron Hubbard, but
inadvertently did. But religion is false and has wholes in it. (
Ti?)
- It's an illusion that Star Trek presents a peaceful environment, they blow
people up all the time, they all carry guns, we still have these same
problems of solving our problems with violence (
Ti?, not agreeing with
herd sentiment that Star Trek is all happy-clappy), but "It's a
beautiful idea." (
Ti?, appreciates the idea even if it hasn't been realized 100% or isn't realistic)
- humble about the role of Star Trek and has a clear definition of his role:
they are entertainers, not trying to change the world
- some stuff is fun but is only for the moment, isn't a classic; every
generation has to rebel against their parents and have their own music
etc (
seeing the big picture without really judging?)
- unscientific observation: look at the eyes darting left and right
Hum, that's all I've got so far.