• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

INTP main character in a movie?

thelithiumcat

Active Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
114
Location
England
#3
I watched a film called Midnight in Paris (I think) recently and I thought that the main character (played by Owen Wilson) could very likely be INTP. Maybe I'm wrong but he seemed like he might be.
 
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
58
Location
McDonough, Ga
#5
What's Eating Gilbert Grape. Johnny Depp's character.
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2012
Messages
575
Location
Far away from All This
#6
The problem is, we're so rare that movie-makers don't want to make movies with INTP-like main characters, because we're so hard to relate to. I think we'll have to be content with relating to secondary characters. But characters like Loki from the new Thor movie (maybe), Sherlock Homes (NOT the main character in my view) and M (from James Bond, could be an SP though) always seem to be the supporting characters. I don't think that's going to change.

Good call on What's Eating Gilbert Grape though, Pistoli. I haven't seen Donnie Darko or Midnight in Paris.

SW
 

Bazaar

Glitter and Gore
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
15
#7
It is honestly difficult to type most movie characters as most of the time they are what the Director/Writer has imagined themselves. These characters might posses some contradictions, but then again, a lot of people do. Sometimes I might come across a movie that I can honestly say the character fits a certain type quite easily, but very rarely do I ever stumble upon that.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
20
Location
In a fish bowl.
#10
The protagonists within Pi and A Beautiful Mind, while portraying severe mental disorder {schizophrenia}, mimic the ruthless truth-seeking, social ostracization, and logical elegance that I associate with the INTP tribe.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
20
Location
In a fish bowl.
#13
Er, John Nash is INTJ, right?
Perhaps, I'm hardly an expert. If that's the consensus of the wise, then I'll cede the point. That Dr. Nash used pure mathematics to revolutionize economic theory {if I remember right} may speak to a functional preference instead of one devoted to purity {Te/Ti}, so he could be an INTJ as easily as an INTP, I suppose; yet, Einstein, considered the quintessential INTP, did something mechanistically similar in physics, didn't he? It's been said that mathematics is the science of patterns, something Ne would naturally excell at in tandem with Ti for logical consistency and precision.

*shrug* Verifying personality is a tricky thing and, in my experience, current diagnostic tools are inadequate {i.e, the validity of MBTI} and/or divided over definitions. That's not to say the entire thing's relative, merely that it's still in development.
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2012
Messages
575
Location
Far away from All This
#14
Loki is likely INTJ, Holmes is ENTP.
In my own defense, I think that if Loki was an INTJ he would've won out over his brother in the end. His own plan wasn't put well enough together. However, I'd be willing to compromise with you there.
Holmes is an example of one of those characters who changes based on who is portraying him. I have seen him called INTP, INTJ, ESTP, ESTJ and ISTP(!?). INTP is my own opinion based on the stories, the TV show, and Robert Downey Jr's portrayal of him (those are the only movies I've seen). Of course, he's always an addict, which is very INTP.

As an addition to our list of INTP main characters in movies and my argument that they do not occur because most people can't relate to them, Spock is a secondary character and an IN(S?)TP.

I haven't seen many movies, so my list just about runs out there.
 

Tony3d

Active Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
321
Location
Phoenix
#15
I don't know about movies, but the anime, Code Geass is completly written around an INTP character being put in all sorts of INTP situations and the main antagonist is completly based on ESFJ (INTPs shadow) and how that conflicts with INTP mindset.
 

Starswirl

Active Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
129
#16
I watched a film called Midnight in Paris (I think) recently and I thought that the main character (played by Owen Wilson) could very likely be INTP. Maybe I'm wrong but he seemed like he might be.
He's clearly an INxP, most likely a T, but possibly F (as signaled by his dreaminess and emotional connections with the city and its past).
 
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
61
Location
South West, UK
#19
Croupier (1998)
Clive Owen plays a brilliant INTP. He's a struggling writer who gets a job in a casino. He's a pro Croupier with a girlfriend he 'sort of loves' and his internal monologue is constant and analytical, as he watched the idiots gamble their money away. It's one of my favourite films of all time and you can watch it on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5qk4ybjWTc

 
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
333
Location
Over the Hills and Far Away
#21
Detachment.

Just watch it.

Try tubeplus
He is an INTJ, the way he snaps and starts yelling, loosing his temper, the way he talks - Te galore.
Although his actual emotional detachment seems 'INTP like', he's not actually detached, as evidenced by his crazy emotional outbursts resulting from built up emotional stress (as opposed to the typical INTP outbursts we are all familiar with from our childhoods, which are responses to immediate stimuli)
 

jantling

camera obscura
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
48
#22
Slight deviation. (Not from a movie.)

This guy (maybe):

"He was one of those people whose ideas are too lively to be confined in thier brains and spill out into the world to the consternation of passers-by. He talked to himself and the expression on his face changed constantly. Within the space of a single moment he looked surprized, insulted, resolute and angry-- emotions which were presumably the consequence of the energetic conversation he was holding with the ideal people inside his head."

Susanna Clarke, Johnathan Strange and Mr. Norrell


Disclaimer: I may have posted this somewhere before, back in the relative dark ages. Can't remember. :o

-jantling
 

r4ch3l

conc/ptu/||/
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
493
Location
CA
#25
I know Lisbeth Salander keeps getting typed as ISTP but she seems like an INTP with some rough edges to me.

Not a main character but Seymour from Ghost World (played by Steve Buscemi) is a total INTP (and I think the main girl could be INFJ).
 

DelusiveNinja

Falsifier of Reality
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
408
Location
Michigan
#26
Detachment.

Just watch it.

Try tubeplus
1 hour and 22 minutes into the movie I shouted, "YES, THAT IS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING." Everyone has problems and people need a distraction from the complexity....from reality.
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
20
Location
Central Europe
#27
anyone thought of Emperor Claudius from I Claudius. clearly an intp
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
#28
No way in hell is Lisbeth Salander an INTP, sure she thinks about shit a bit, but it's hard not to do that when you're the odd one out. You need to make sense of all the shit happening to you in order to survive.

I think she's the quintessential ISTP protagonist in many ways except her sex.
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,610
Location
Charn
#29
No way in hell is Lisbeth Salander an INTP, sure she thinks about shit a bit, but it's hard not to do that when you're the odd one out. You need to make sense of all the shit happening to you in order to survive.

I think she's the quintessential ISTP protagonist in many ways except her sex.
In the version I saw with Noomi, she seemed to be that weird blend of ISTP/INFJ woman I've seen in occasion IRL. (there are traits from both that show up, Ni + Ti plus some weird mix of distorted Fe and Se.)
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
#30
Since I am an idiot and don't even pay attention to the titles of threads I was commenting on the Lisbeth Salander of the books. She comes of as an ISTP in the Swedish film version as well though imo! Granted she's pretty fucked up mentally, especially in the first film which is the one I've seen, the way she uses Se is pretty brutal whether it be for sex or fighting or whatever, then again wouldn't Clint Eastwood do that to?

Furthermore, why is Donnie Darko "definitely an INTP"? I don't claim to know his type, he seems IN, and probably P, but what makes him T in contrast to F? Off the top of my head I could just as easily see him being an INFP as an INTP.

Gilbert Grape is a bigger question mark, that's one of my favourite movies so would be interested in hearing why you deem him an INTP; I don't see anything at all that would make him one.
 

Puffy

Demon Alpaca Overlord
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
2,763
Location
SOON
#31
Not a main character but Seymour from Ghost World (played by Steve Buscemi) is a total INTP (and I think the main girl could be INFJ).
Interesting, I still haven't seen the film though I'd like to. It's a good novel, I'd agree the female leads come across as NFish. :p

I'm pretty certain Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen is meant to be an INTP. He's the main one off the top of my head I feel relatively certain about. The thing is unless characters are quite flat and stereotypical I find typing characters to be inherently vague, or it at least requires a really thorough and consistent understanding of functions to deconstruct character's motivations with, which is too much work. :p

And "introverted and thinks a lot" is definitely not an adequate INTP profile. :D (not targeted at anyone specific, just a general pattern across threads.)
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
#32
Eh? What is NF'ish about "the" lead girl? She's detached and constantly sarcastic, toying with people for fun ENTP/INTJ. Leaning towards INTJ because she has typical Se inferior issues and is unable to control her Fi, plus extraverts thinking pissing people off even when she doesn't intend to do so.

Have not read the novel <.<
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,610
Location
Charn
#33
I'm pretty certain Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen is meant to be an INTP. He's the main one off the top of my head I feel relatively certain about. The thing is unless characters are quite flat and stereotypical I find typing characters to be inherently vague, or it at least requires a really thorough and consistent understanding of functions to deconstruct character's motivations with, which is too much work. :p
I agree with that.

I think he can come off with certainty to the degree that people might think he's J, but I look at him more like you look at him. his certainty only comes because he has almost god-like omniscience, so it's not about being closure-oriented but simply being aware of truths that are opaque to humans but blatantly obvious to him. Even with the doubt, INTPs do become more confident if there are truths that have always proven true or that can be validated somehow to be "true in any relevant sense."

We also see him in two forms: His human original self and the "self" that exists after the accident.

There are a few traits that are very INTP like in Jon Osterman AKA Dr. Manhattan:

1. Cause/Effect AKA Determinism: He looks at reality like a huge clock full of intermeshed gears. Everything is cause and effect. he sees everything as an intricate machine that can be understood if you know the parts and how they interact.

2. Impersonal / Cluelessness to Relational Aspects: Like when he creates duplicates of himself, so he can make love to Laurie and work in the lab simultaneously, not realizing she will be pissed and leave him. He even creates two of himself to pleasure her, figuring it to just be an experiment in itself and possibly enjoyable to her, rather than offensive. And he had moved onto Laurie when Jennie Slater no longer interested him, without a lot of concern over Jennie.

3. Big picture rational: Don't even need to explain this, it's just very blatant with him. Always thinking on the cosmic level.

4. Detachment: He is very often an observer. When he does get involved, he has enough power that he can just withdraw at any time. He's really outside of any human law or rule. The Comedian accuses him of being a flake, at one point, and point out to him how he is losing / has lost his humanity. Jon perceives him to be right, but has no idea what to do about -- or realizes he cannot do anything about it. He just views it as a truth about himself to accept, not change.

5. Equanimity/Balance: Comes with the detachment, he is thinking globally in terms of his own behavior and what he does / doesn't do. It's not really about what he wants, it's about what makes sense to him. At one moment, he feels humanity can just destroy itself / has no value; but then when he has an insight based on further information, his conclusions change accordingly. His brain works like a logic machine and he accepts the output.

What I find interesting is that despite his omniscience, he didn't really realize he was being played by Ozy in order to have him voluntarily withdraw; he still has emotional responses (like his outburst where he cuts out of the news conference after the reporter hounds him). Typical Fe outburst behavior. His insight into the "machine" of how the world works is amazing, but Jon still doesn't quite grasp feelings and relational connection.

Also, it is the power that accentuated his tendences. I think Jon always had this style of personality but at least had a human side to him when he WAS human. The issue describing the origin of Dr. Manhatten is profound not in its cosmic breadth but in terms of Jon's original humanity. Now he is this "will" that exists across time, everything is visible to him / his thoughts all exist simultaneously (where for normal humans, we are limited to knowledge of the past, action in the present, and uncertainty over our future), but he speaks of connection to others including Jennie in ways that are very poignant because he knows he is beyond it now and can never experience it again. There is a sense of huge loss in Jon's memories, even though he is virtually now a god.


Side topic: Did we mention Sylar from Heroes in this thread before?
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,096
#34
I know Lisbeth Salander keeps getting typed as ISTP but she seems like an INTP with some rough edges to me.
I kind of feel the same way. She reminded me of my PTSD and my schizoid tendencies. It's how I deal with it and always have.

I'm not sure why INTPs all have to be like Doctor Manhattan or absent-minded, lest they get typed as something else.

Because then I want to ask "What does a traumatized INTP look like?" Do they have to be tormented hermits/philosophers to deal with their troubles?
 

Puffy

Demon Alpaca Overlord
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
2,763
Location
SOON
#36
I agree with that.

I think he can come off with certainty to the degree that people might think he's J, but I look at him more like you look at him. his certainty only comes because he has almost god-like omniscience, so it's not about being closure-oriented but simply being aware of truths that are opaque to humans but blatantly obvious to him. Even with the doubt, INTPs do become more confident if there are truths that have always proven true or that can be validated somehow to be "true in any relevant sense."

We also see him in two forms: His human original self and the "self" that exists after the accident.

There are a few traits that are very INTP like in Jon Osterman AKA Dr. Manhattan:

1. Cause/Effect AKA Determinism: He looks at reality like a huge clock full of intermeshed gears. Everything is cause and effect. he sees everything as an intricate machine that can be understood if you know the parts and how they interact.

2. Impersonal / Cluelessness to Relational Aspects: Like when he creates duplicates of himself, so he can make love to Laurie and work in the lab simultaneously, not realizing she will be pissed and leave him. He even creates two of himself to pleasure her, figuring it to just be an experiment in itself and possibly enjoyable to her, rather than offensive. And he had moved onto Laurie when Jennie Slater no longer interested him, without a lot of concern over Jennie.

3. Big picture rational: Don't even need to explain this, it's just very blatant with him. Always thinking on the cosmic level.

4. Detachment: He is very often an observer. When he does get involved, he has enough power that he can just withdraw at any time. He's really outside of any human law or rule. The Comedian accuses him of being a flake, at one point, and point out to him how he is losing / has lost his humanity. Jon perceives him to be right, but has no idea what to do about -- or realizes he cannot do anything about it. He just views it as a truth about himself to accept, not change.

5. Equanimity/Balance: Comes with the detachment, he is thinking globally in terms of his own behavior and what he does / doesn't do. It's not really about what he wants, it's about what makes sense to him. At one moment, he feels humanity can just destroy itself / has no value; but then when he has an insight based on further information, his conclusions change accordingly. His brain works like a logic machine and he accepts the output.

What I find interesting is that despite his omniscience, he didn't really realize he was being played by Ozy in order to have him voluntarily withdraw; he still has emotional responses (like his outburst where he cuts out of the news conference after the reporter hounds him). Typical Fe outburst behavior. His insight into the "machine" of how the world works is amazing, but Jon still doesn't quite grasp feelings and relational connection.

Also, it is the power that accentuated his tendences. I think Jon always had this style of personality but at least had a human side to him when he WAS human. The issue describing the origin of Dr. Manhatten is profound not in its cosmic breadth but in terms of Jon's original humanity. Now he is this "will" that exists across time, everything is visible to him / his thoughts all exist simultaneously (where for normal humans, we are limited to knowledge of the past, action in the present, and uncertainty over our future), but he speaks of connection to others including Jennie in ways that are very poignant because he knows he is beyond it now and can never experience it again. There is a sense of huge loss in Jon's memories, even though he is virtually now a god.


Side topic: Did we mention Sylar from Heroes in this thread before?
Basically agree, and really liked your break-down of his character...

I hadn't thought about the certainty aspect before in him. I think it's because, for an omniscient character, he isn't very directive -- he kind of goes with the flow content to pursue his own detached interests. There's rarely points where he's challenged (who's going to call BS on a demi-God?) to see if a stubbornness leaks through. I'd also point out that, despite that omniscience, he does change his mind in some significant ways in the book too (w/ Laurie on Mars, etc)... Though I think you said that in your spoilers.

It's bits like: "what's up, Doc?" "Up is a relative concept. It has no intrinsic value" which makes me :D inferior Fe denial. :p

Contrast with Ozymandias who you KNOW would not be able to help but use the same powers to shape the world as he sees fit. Manhattan's adaptive (P) where Ozymandias is directive (J). He has to be either an INTJ or an INFJ... -- his worldview is all Ni vision. Rorschach, Comedian, Silk Spectre and Nite Owl are harder...
 

Puffy

Demon Alpaca Overlord
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
2,763
Location
SOON
#38
manhattan is no INTP he is just this weird dude

o wait
I'm pretty confident most of the superhero characters in that book are deliberately dysfunctional, as a part of the book's critique of power. It's pretty self-evident from the many INTPs here that INTPs are not that extremely detached, or not necessarily so, but I can't personally see what other type he might be.
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,096
#39
I'm pretty confident most of the superhero characters in that book are deliberately dysfunctional, as a part of the book's critique of power. It's pretty self-evident from the many INTPs here that INTPs are not that extremely detached, or not necessarily so, but I can't personally see what other type he might be.
It interesting that you say that since a lot of those characters fit types really well, but they fit dysfunctional archetypes of those types. Heavy introverts and heavy extroverts colors them to a certain extreme that they have a hard time having a functional relationship to reality.

I suppose Manhattan's introverted nature is easy for INTPs to relate to; I can see that, but he is dysfunctional, you are right. He doesn't know how to integrate himself well with other people. He's missing an extroverted nature that cuts himself off from ... well everyone.
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,610
Location
Charn
#40
Basically agree, and really liked your break-down of his character...

I hadn't thought about the certainty aspect before in him. I think it's because, for an omniscient character, he isn't very directive -- he kind of goes with the flow content to pursue his own detached interests. There's rarely points where he's challenged (who's going to call BS on a demi-God?) to see if a stubbornness leaks through. I'd also point out that, despite that omniscience, he does change his mind in some significant ways in the book too (w/ Laurie on Mars, etc)... Though I think you said that in your spoilers.
Good point to bring up -- yes, he seems sure in the moment, but with new information, he adjusts his conclusions. he explores and adjusts to reality.

Contrast that with Ozy as you said, who is very Directive....

Rorschach, Comedian, Silk Spectre and Nite Owl are harder...
The Comedian seems pretty ESTP in persona; he's the ultimate, personable, live in the moment, stubborn, dominating pragmatist.

The others are more vague to me. Dan's got some ISFP / Nine traits, i think, but I'm not sure of his type. Silk spectre and Rorschach both seem S types to me, and Rorschach is very black-and-white and relentless and "sees what is" and not what could be. He's like a set of balance scales; context doesn't matter, he just drops you on the scales and that's that.
 

Hadoblado

The choicest fuckboi
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
4,933
#41
Croupier (1998)
Clive Owen plays a brilliant INTP. He's a struggling writer who gets a job in a casino. He's a pro Croupier with a girlfriend he 'sort of loves' and his internal monologue is constant and analytical, as he watched the idiots gamble their money away. It's one of my favourite films of all time and you can watch it on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5qk4ybjWTc

"it's the rule, always stand by your first count, the odds are you're right" ~ notanINTP
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
20
Location
Central Europe
#42
Also,

president Merkin Muffley in Dr. Strangelove (probably)
Tim in The Office UK series
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,096
#43
The others are more vague to me. Dan's got some ISFP / Nine traits, i think, but I'm not sure of his type. Silk spectre and Rorschach both seem S types to me, and Rorschach is very black-and-white and relentless and "sees what is" and not what could be. He's like a set of balance scales; context doesn't matter, he just drops you on the scales and that's that.

I thought of Rorschach as an ESTJ gone bad, personally. He's pretty extroverted in his thinking about situations; he's usually reacting to things around him and he seems pretty driven by personal feelings that only seem to include things personal to himself. I'd expect that from an Fi inferior. But as an extrovert, he would have been much better off if he had focused his energy into exploring his personal relationship to reality and trying to make that better. That part seems completely lost on him, similar to how ESTJs will work themselves to death, never taking the time to realize they never enjoy their rewards, nor do they tend to see life as anything other than what they work towards.
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,610
Location
Charn
#44
I thought of Rorschach as an ESTJ gone bad, personally. He's pretty extroverted in his thinking about situations; he's usually reacting to things around him and he seems pretty driven by personal feelings that only seem to include things personal to himself. I'd expect that from an Fi inferior. But as an extrovert, he would have been much better off if he had focused his energy into exploring his personal relationship to reality and trying to make that better. That part seems completely lost on him, similar to how ESTJs will work themselves to death, never taking the time to realize they never enjoy their rewards, nor do they tend to see life as anything other than what they work towards.
I'm just kind of surprised anyone would classify Rorschach as an extrovert. He's about as tight-lipped and secretive as they come... an introvert's introvert. He lives in his interior world and puts nothing out there for anyone to understand. he even has to apologize to Dan once, when Dan finally loses his temper with him over how hard it is to communicate with him and be his friend... and it's difficult for him to even just say he doesn't mean to be such a jerk all the time.

Usually what extroverts have trouble with is keeping their mouth shut + developing that interior world.
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,096
#45
I'm just kind of surprised anyone would classify Rorschach as an extrovert. He's about as tight-lipped and secretive as they come... an introvert's introvert. He lives in his interior world and puts nothing out there for anyone to understand.
he even has to apologize to Dan once, when Dan finally loses his temper with him over how hard it is to communicate with him and be his friend... and it's difficult for him to even just say he doesn't mean to be such a jerk all the time.
Extroverts tend to have this problem. A lot of times, they don't even know how to express why they are the way they are because they aren't good at sorting out their internal world, their motivations and such.

Usually what extroverts have trouble with is keeping their mouth shut + developing that interior world.
But that's not really what Jung meant by extroversion. His idea was more a focus on external happenings to the point that internalizing things becomes a problem for the individual. They aren't really aware of the affect they have and their motivations and such. It's either harder or unnatural to reflect. Extroverts could probably be thought to be more "reactive".

But I think you use stereotypical ideas of what it means to be introverted/extroverted. Tight-lipped and secretive is tight-lipped and secretive. Rorschach's inner-world is chaotic and he doesn't spend much time sorting it out; he's highly reactive and tends to focus on what's going on around him from moment to moment. That said, he gets none of the benefits of being an introvert.

And I'd expect an introvert to be a bit more reflective about things and less concerned with "doing things one way or seeing things one way and not really caring about the effect they have on others or the effect others have on them". Rorschach doesn't even really understand why he does the things he does; he just acts on what he believes to be right or to be a sense of justice. An introvert would reflect on why they believe or act the way they do and use that to improve their actions.

I wouldn't be against Fi for Dan. He's a bit more introverted in how he came across in his thoughts and interactions with everyone else. So is Manhattan. Rorschach not so much.

edit:

BTW, Jung talks about inferior Feeling or Fi in Te types and even though it's hard to read, it does reflect Rorscach and why typing him as an extrovert makes a lot more sense to me.

The inferiority of feeling in this type manifests itself also in other ways. In so far as it corresponds with the dominating positive formula, the conscious attitude becomes more or less impersonal, often, indeed, to such a degree that a very considerable wrong is done to personal interests. When the conscious attitude is extreme, all personal considerations recede from view, even those which concern the individual's own person. His health is neglected, his social position deteriorates, often the most vital interests of his family are violated -- they are wronged morally and financially, even their bodily health is made to suffer -- all in the service of the ideal. At all events personal sympathy with others must be impaired, unless they too chance to be in the service of the same formula. Hence it not infrequently happens that his immediate family circle, his own children for instance, only know such a father as a cruel tyrant, whilst the outer world resounds with the fame of his humanity. Not so much in spite of as because of the highly impersonal character of the conscious attitude, the unconscious feelings are highly personal and oversensitive, giving rise to certain secret prejudices, as, for instance, a decided readiness to misconstrue any objective opposition to his formula as personal ill-will, or a constant tendency to make negative suppositions regarding the qualities of others in order to invalidate their arguments beforehand-in defence, naturally, of his own susceptibility. As a result of this unconscious sensitiveness, his expression and tone frequently becomes sharp, pointed, aggressive, and insinuations multiply. The feelings have an untimely and halting character, which is always a mark of the inferior function. Hence arises a pronounced tendency to resentment. However generous the individual sacrifice [p. 440] to the intellectual goal may be, the feelings are correspondingly petty, suspicious, crossgrained, and conservative. Everything new that is not already contained formula is viewed through a veil of unconscious and is judged accordingly. It happened only in middle of last century that a certain physician, famed his humanitarianism, threatened to dismiss an assistant for daring to use a thermometer, because the formula decreed that fever shall be recognized by the pulse. There are, of course, a host of similar examples.

Thinking which in other respects may be altogether blameless becomes all the more subtly and prejudicially, affected, the more feelings are repressed. An intellectual standpoint, which, perhaps on account of its actual intrinsic value, might justifiably claim general recognition, undergoes a characteristic alteration through the influence of this unconscious personal sensitiveness; it becomes rigidly dogmatic. The personal self-assertion is transferred to the intellectual standpoint. Truth is no longer left to work her natural effect, but through an identification with the subject she is treated like a sensitive darling whom an evil-minded critic has wronged. The critic is demolished, if possible with personal invective, and no argument is too gross to be used against him. Truth must be trotted out, until finally it begins to dawn upon the public that it is not so much really a question of truth as of her personal procreator.

The dogmatism of the intellectual standpoint, however, occasionally undergoes still further peculiar modifications from the unconscious admixture of unconscious personal feelings; these changes are less a question of feeling, in the stricter sense, than of contamination from other unconscious factors which become blended with the repressed feeling in the unconscious. Although reason itself offers proof, that every intellectual formula can be no more than [p. 441] a partial truth, and can never lay claim, therefore, to autocratic authority; in practice, the formula obtains so great an ascendancy that, beside it, every other standpoint and possibility recedes into the background. It replaces all the more general, less defined, hence the more modest and truthful, views of life. It even takes the place of that general view of life which we call religion. Thus the formula becomes a religion, although in essentials it has not the smallest connection with anything religious. Therewith it also gains the essentially religious character of absoluteness. It becomes, as it were, an intellectual superstition. But now all those psychological tendencies that suffer under its repression become grouped together in the unconscious, and form a counter-position, giving rise to paroxysms of doubt. As a defence against doubt, the conscious attitude grows fanatical. For fanaticism, after all, is merely overcompensated doubt. Ultimately this development leads to an exaggerated defence of the conscious position, and to the gradual formation of an absolutely antithetic unconscious position; for example, an extreme irrationality develops, in opposition to the conscious rationalism, or it becomes highly archaic and superstitious, in opposition to a conscious standpoint imbued with modern science. This fatal opposition is the source of those narrow-minded and ridiculous views, familiar to the historians of science, into which many praiseworthy pioneers have ultimately blundered. It not infrequently happens in a man of this type that the side of the unconscious becomes embodied in a woman.
I think he was mostly talking about scientists, but the same idea applies to Rorscach's dysfunctional actions and ways of thinking about everything.
 

Puffy

Demon Alpaca Overlord
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
2,763
Location
SOON
#46
That's really interesting -- I could definitely imagine Rorschach as having Si in his top two.

Long story short: Rorschach is a solipsist, maybe solipsism is dysfunctional extroversion in a sense? :confused:

He's the embodiment of the superhero tradition, or maybe superhero morality, gone rotten. His internal world is chaotic, yes, so he relies on incredibly simplistic thinking like "there's good and there's evil, and evil must be punished." I see him as being the upholder of this as a tradition to the point in absolute application it becomes deeply problematic.

It's maybe a kind of (radical) conservative response to existentialism, the problem of an apparent lack of meaning to existence. Defend this tradition by all means and at all costs -- I get the sense in his character that he's not actually 100% convinced by his dogma, that he's internally conflicted, but has to hold on to it because he can't deal with reality without it.

I see Rorschach as being a highly solipsistic character (and this is maybe why Jenny sees him as an introvert), and that's what the real meaning behind the inkblot face is -- he's only able to treat the world as a solipsistic mirror of his own thinking, and it's because of this he's unable to communicate with anything except in terms of this illusion.

There's a really poignant motif in the novel in the form of those spray-painted silhouettes of lover's consoling each other on the walls of the city. The novel very often seems to juxtapose them with both Rorschach and Laurie and Dan -- you get the sense that the latter are able to confront the difficulties of their world because they have each other, where for Rorschach he can only see them as reflections of his childhood abuse. In effect, he's totally alone, and can't abandon his binary way of seeing the world because it's the only "consoling" image he has.

Funnily enough, and maybe Jenny will appreciate this, I actually see Rorschach as a sociopathic version of Da Blob. The solipsism, the inability to communicate with people except in terms of his worldview. It's a strangely profound connection to me actually. :phear:
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,610
Location
Charn
#47
Funnily enough, and maybe Jenny will appreciate this, I actually see Rorschach as a sociopathic version of Da Blob. The solipsism, the inability to communicate with people except in terms of his worldview. It's a strangely profound connection to me actually. :phear:
Well, I didn't appreciate snorting coffee out my nose -- I always brew it strong, and my sinuses are feeling it now, ha! -- but I can see why you would make that comparison.

It doesn't help that Blob's username is so typical of superheroes/villains either.

I would like to comment on your spoiler info, except I have very little I can add to it without marring it; you explained it very well and very eloquently. I do think Rorschach is so rigid because he's so imbalanced/fractured, and his worldview is how he keeps himself together, as you've stated so well. Dan and Laurie are probably the most "normal" characters in the whole crazy crew, tbh.... and maybe Comedian, although his extreme cynicism can be read as a distortion. Dan and Laurie have each other, and that's how they hold things together.

@Reluctantly: I think you're overthinking... one of the biggest problems I see with typing people. The more someone overthinks, the more someone can justify anything.

Don't overthink. You don't have to study a duck in excruciating detail to perceive that it is a duck.
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#48
That's really interesting -- I could definitely imagine Rorschach as having Si in his top two.

Long story short: Rorschach is a solipsist, maybe solipsism is dysfunctional extroversion in a sense? :confused:

He's the embodiment of the superhero tradition, or maybe superhero morality, gone rotten. His internal world is chaotic, yes, so he relies on incredibly simplistic thinking like "there's good and there's evil, and evil must be punished." I see him as being the upholder of this as a tradition to the point in absolute application it becomes deeply problematic.

It's maybe a kind of (radical) conservative response to existentialism, the problem of an apparent lack of meaning to existence. Defend this tradition by all means and at all costs -- I get the sense in his character that he's not actually 100% convinced by his dogma, that he's internally conflicted, but has to hold on to it because he can't deal with reality without it.

I see Rorschach as being a highly solipsistic character (and this is maybe why Jenny sees him as an introvert), and that's what the real meaning behind the inkblot face is -- he's only able to treat the world as a solipsistic mirror of his own thinking, and it's because of this he's unable to communicate with anything except in terms of this illusion.

There's a really poignant motif in the novel in the form of those spray-painted silhouettes of lover's consoling each other on the walls of the city. The novel very often seems to juxtapose them with both Rorschach and Laurie and Dan -- you get the sense that the latter are able to confront the difficulties of their world because they have each other, where for Rorschach he can only see them as reflections of his childhood abuse. In effect, he's totally alone, and can't abandon his binary way of seeing the world because it's the only "consoling" image he has.

Funnily enough, and maybe Jenny will appreciate this, I actually see Rorschach as a sociopathic version of Da Blob. The solipsism, the inability to communicate with people except in terms of his worldview. It's a strangely profound connection to me actually. :phear:

I like this analysis...

I have no idea what he is :phear:

I could see Si in there, but there is so much of it, it seems like an inferior grip, but then again I could say the same with Fi. On Ni, he does seem to have a vision that the world has gone rotten, but I guess that's more his personal Fi in a sense.

On him being I/E, clearly the modern/pop definitions don't easily equate, as Reluctant has pointed out, so if we go to the original (Jung) definitions, is he relating to objects/subjects? I would argue objects (E), though he is personally hurt by his past, the way he goes about it and everything is related...in a sense. If we go by the pop I/E definitions, it really doesn't work, look at the past abuse - not even an extravert would be okay after that, anyone would be repressed. All in all, he really doesn't seem too introspective, but that could be just because of how broken he is, it is obviously too painful. - but I'm not fully against either.

But yeah I could go for Si in top two like you said, and maaaaybe some Fi in there. (If everything in the world had been right,or the way it should have been [Si] then he would have been ok, but it isn't, so therefore the world is rotten and wrong), so yeah I buy Si somewhere.

Idk, he's broken as fuuuuuck.

So

Si > Se
Fi > Fe

xSTJ?

Te-Si-Ne-Fi estj
Si-Te-Fi-Ne istj

I like ESTJ, he seems to be an Fi inferior with dat Te-Si, instead of an Ne inferior... just my guess.

And like I said above, extravert can not be ruled out just because he is tight lipped/quiet, as per the intense past.

Either way, xSTJ seems fitting.

(I like Manhattan as INTP and Comedian as ESTP and Dan as ISFP and Ozy as INTJ though)
 
Top Bottom