• 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?

Absurdity

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 00:42
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
2,359
#51
The only Q I have about ISTJ Rorschach is where's the inf Ne?
Fear of the unknown:

Catastrophizing​

Whereas effective dominant Extraverted Intuitive types thrive on the exciting possibilities the future will bring, Introverted Sensing types in the grip of inferior Extraverted Intuition anticipate the future with fear and trembling. As their descent into the grip proceeds, they become ever more negative, less willing to tolerate the unfamiliar, and more wildly imaginative about disastrous outcomes. One ISFJ described this as “awfulizing.”

In its full-blown state, inferior Extraverted Intuition anticipates all the catastrophes that might happen in an unsafe, threatening world and focuses on dire possibilities in the future. (Remember that the other Introverted perceiving types, the Introverted Intuitive types, focus on negative realities in the present.) ISTJs and ISFJs imagine that anything not previously experienced—any unfamiliar place, any new activity—will provoke horrifying consequences. In the full grip of their inferior function, even familiar, previously safe areas may be reassessed as fraught with danger. This level of catastrophizing is the hallmark of inferior Extraverted Intuition.
Source
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Local time
Today, 03:42
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,615
Location
Charn
#52
Fear of the unknown:
Yeah, he's terrified of the unknown, and on the opposite end is always appealing to the known familiar quantities of the past ("good men like President Truman", etc.) The new world is extremely unsettling, another reason why when he was faced with so much ambiguity/possibility, he finally became Rorschach as his main identity and tried to impose his own view on the world, to restore order.

Change is seen as the onset of world destruction ("The end is nigh"). Things must remain defined and separate, not ambiguous and unlabeled... and change/possibilities defy labeling.
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Local time
Yesterday, 21:42
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,138
#53
@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.
I'm not overthinking it. Rorschach is very much Te and Si. Whether you want to call him an extrovert or an introvert then is somewhat trivial because he's not one extreme over the other.

It's common here for people to think that anyone who has introverted tendencies must be an introvert -> and in doing so, everyone is quick to ignore how he relates to Te when he relates quite a bit. One could argue that he has inferior Ne as well, if you really want. But classifying him as a strong introvert is way way wayyyyyy oversimplifying.

And what no one has consistently shown knowledge of or even an interest in is the understanding of repression in the psychological types. Individuation is supposed to be about recognizing the unconscious. For extroverts, that means recognizing their internalized convictions, motivations, whatever, etc. (i.e. introversion) -> they are generally unaware of how they come across because they are so focused on the moment. For introverts, that means externalizing themselves in a way that makes their internalizations a part of external reality -> their understanding is not utilized in reality until it is externalized in some way.

:edit:
The problem with typing Rorschach then as an introvert is that his problem relates to that of an extrovert. It's a concept, not overthinking anything, which is why it's ludicrous to type with generalizations and stereotypes as people often do.
:edit:

Now, just because I am contesting your conservative views on typology, doesn't mean I'm overthinking anything. You've openly criticized Jung as indecipherable (on another forum), despite the fact that it's all based off it, yet you think it's okay to dismiss what you don't understand.
If anything, I'd say your persistent reliance on behavioral traits that can be interpreted differently depending on the person means you don't care for a deep understanding and you don't mind underthinking and stereotyping people. There are Jungian concepts you choose to ignore that underlie these types; and I guess all I can do then is keep checking you for it. But yes, keep insulting me and telling me what I think is ridiculous (overthinking or something you can't even understand why I'd suggest) because I think it's funny when you pretend to be an expert and ignore what you want.

:facepalm:

God fucking damit.
 
Local time
Today, 08:42
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
#54
Isn't he a consistent loner who cant stand people?

Those tend to be introverted.

Your argument about individuation is simplified, it brings up only the I/E dichotomy when in truth there are three more to consider. The individuation process differs from type to type, from person to person, and is a vague concept to boot.

Furthermore, considering the individuation process on your terms: I find that Rorschach fits the bill for an introvert and one with an inferior Ne. He doesn't trust the external world, but rather thinks it a rotten depraved and unreliable thing, slippery and ever changing. Instead, he anchors himself in his own world of categorical moral judgements and set boundaries. He's also pissed all the time. And it's not like he doesn't get that he's a loner asshole he just thinks it's the only way and that the external world - and not he - is to blame for it.

So all in all, shity Ne and shity Fi. Grumpy ISTJ in bad need of some individuation.

You spent a lot of words describing MBTI theory but used too few to connect Rorshachs actual behavior and thinking to those theoretical constructs.
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Local time
Today, 03:42
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,615
Location
Charn
#55
I'm not overthinking it. Rorschach is very much Te and Si. Whether you want to call him an extrovert or an introvert then is somewhat trivial because he's not one extreme over the other.
I'd agree he exhibits Te and Si function use. But I don't see any extroversion in him at all... so I don't think it's trivial in the least.

But classifying him as a strong introvert is way way wayyyyyy oversimplifying.
Why? You haven't shown anything relevant in this regard.

And what no one has consistently shown knowledge of or even an interest in is the understanding of repression in the psychological types. Individuation is supposed to be about recognizing the unconscious. For extroverts, that means recognizing their internalized convictions, motivations, whatever, etc. (i.e. introversion) -> they are generally unaware of how they come across because they are so focused on the moment. For introverts, that means externalizing themselves in a way that makes their internalizations a part of external reality -> their understanding is not utilized in reality until it is externalized in some way.

:edit:
The problem with typing Rorschach then as an introvert is that his problem relates to that of an extrovert. It's a concept, not overthinking anything, which is why it's ludicrous to type with generalizations and stereotypes as people often do.
:edit:
Just because I disagree with you and am asking for relevant evidence from you, rather than all this theoretical conjecture, doesn't mean I'm generalizing or pursuing stereotypes.

What do you think his "problem" is?

I think his main problem is that, as another has said, he has a rather solipsistic perception of reality where people other than himself are primarily objects rather than human beings and thus smears upon his preferred view of reality. He's rather a psychopath and has an obvious history of attachment issues with human beings, beginning with his father (who he doesn't know?) and a mother who verbally, emotionally, and physically abused him when he tried to show concern for her as a child. He really has no anchors in life except for his internal mapping of what a hyperidealized world is supposed to be like. Looking for security, he's resorted to a black and white view of reality -- the binary contrast between good and bad is the most important element here. This of course impacts his behavior to a degree that is even more important to me than his "MBTI type," the expression of which is going to be tempered by his psychopathology... and I don't even have to speculate on it, as his psychological/medical history is clearly laid out in Issue #6.

Now, just because I am contesting your conservative views on typology, doesn't mean I'm overthinking anything. You've openly criticized Jung as indecipherable (on another forum), despite the fact that it's all based off it, yet you think it's okay to dismiss what you don't understand.

If anything, I'd say your persistent reliance on behavioral traits that can be interpreted differently depending on the person means you don't care for a deep understanding and you don't mind underthinking and stereotyping people. There are Jungian concepts you choose to ignore that underlie these types; and I guess all I can do then is keep checking you for it. But yes, keep insulting me and telling me what I think is ridiculous (overthinking or something you can't even understand why I'd suggest) because I think it's funny when you pretend to be an expert and ignore what you want.
Yes, blah blah BLAH blah... more generalized cliche conjecture about me without really stating anything that could explain your case and using language like "conservative" as another stereotypical perjorative, etc? Even dragging in vague criticisms of some post I might have made on other forums? You're a riot.

And should we discuss all the differences between Keirsey, and Jung, and MBTI, and JCF, and Socionics, and Beebe's descriptions of function roles, and... well, lots of "theoretical" stuff out there that are kind of lumped together but not really necessarily derived from each other?

My history in type ranges about 20 years, and at about year 10, after getting too immersed in these discussions, I started to see much of it as just armchair conjecture and theoretical claptrap. I've seen so much bullshit where people construct elaborate cases to justify their own reads, rather than actually just looking at basic behavior and recognizing similar patterns IRL. So I usually don't even waste my time in these discussions... they end up looking like this.

:facepalm: God fucking damit.
you know, "Dammit" is the more conventional usage.
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Local time
Today, 03:42
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,615
Location
Charn
#56
Got one (most likely).

Capa, the young physicist (played by Cillian Murphy), in Danny Boyle's "Sunshine".

Theoretical, easy-going, thinks through everything as first instinct (vs Mace and others who take action / assert themselves), receptive vs initiating. He's actually a balanced INTP, not an extreme, the postmodern form vs the classic; and he likely has E9 leanings IMO. Always has that observer approach; he has Thinker priorities (such as when they're trying to decide what to do with the suicide watch guy), but seems to see more possibilities than Mace does.

And of course he seems to have a good sense of transcendence, the beauty/truth mix especially in the ending.
 

ILIandINTP

Ego Assassin
Local time
Today, 00:42
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
3
#58
Hiccup from How To Train Your Dragon is most definitely an INTP. I can't add anymore off the top of my head, but, contrary to popular belief, INTPs can make very interesting protagonists.
 

ILIandINTP

Ego Assassin
Local time
Today, 00:42
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
3
#59
just because Loki talks a lot doesn't mean he's extroverted. he definitely has a very strong Te function, but that doesn't mean he's extroverted. INTJs are actually notorious as among the most deceivingly extroverted of the introverts since they use their Te so much they can easily b mistaken as extroverts. Loki seeks to "fix" the world because he doesn't see anyone else doing so, and this doesn't make him an extrovert, it makes him goal-driven. he also has a tendency to connect external ideas to internal versions of experiences, so I would argue he's Ni dominant and therefore an INTJ. feel free to refute me
 

Rook

Verily.
Local time
Today, 10:42
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
1,805
#60
Loki is driven by strong emotions, eschewing rational planning for hyper emotional showmanship.
INFJ
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 08:42
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,645
#61
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.
That's because he is an Fi-dom.

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.
Fi-doms are usually pretty placid, until someone crosses their values. Then, they're black-hot angry, and stay that way for a while. However, if the injustices that violated the Fi-dom's values keep being presented to him over and over again, then the Fi-dom never gets to calm down. He's permanently angry, in that kind of cold, searing anger that just won't go away, and will keep whacking away until it's done, like Rorschach does with the criminals that violate his values, people who torture, rape, maim, and kill, little children. As long as that goes on, Rorschach will always be angry, and will hunt them down until they are spent, or he is. That's why he doesn't back down from trying to stop Ozzy, even when he knows that he will fail no matter what, and that all his attempts will do, is lead to his death. He can't stop himself from trying to stop Ozzy kill millions. His feelings won't cease imagining the horrors and making him feel endless torment of what Ozzy's nukes will bring. He can stop those feelings, only by either stopping Ozzy, or dying. If he doesn't stop Ozzy, he lives, and has to live with his feelings. If he tries to stop Ozzy, and he is killed in the process, he can die happy, knowing that he did everything in his power to try to stop the atrocity, and doesn't have to live with his feelings either. Win-win for Rorschach.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 08:42
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,645
#62
Loki is driven by strong emotions, eschewing rational planning for hyper emotional showmanship.
INFJ
INTJs go into that type of showmanship.

INFJs typically go for humble service. Where they like to show off, is by hosting dinner parties that everyone raves about. They love to be "the hostess with the mostess".
 
Local time
Today, 09:42
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,647
#63
storytelling is much about giving significance to otherwise mundane events or objects. the INTP mind strips anything of significance. it doesn't go well together.
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Local time
Yesterday, 21:42
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,138
#64
That's because he is an Fi-dom.

Fi-doms are usually pretty placid, until someone crosses their values. Then, they're black-hot angry, and stay that way for a while. However, if the injustices that violated the Fi-dom's values keep being presented to him over and over again, then the Fi-dom never gets to calm down. He's permanently angry, in that kind of cold, searing anger that just won't go away, and will keep whacking away until it's done, like Rorschach does with the criminals that violate his values, people who torture, rape, maim, and kill, little children. As long as that goes on, Rorschach will always be angry, and will hunt them down until they are spent, or he is. That's why he doesn't back down from trying to stop Ozzy, even when he knows that he will fail no matter what, and that all his attempts will do, is lead to his death. He can't stop himself from trying to stop Ozzy kill millions. His feelings won't cease imagining the horrors and making him feel endless torment of what Ozzy's nukes will bring. He can stop those feelings, only by either stopping Ozzy, or dying. If he doesn't stop Ozzy, he lives, and has to live with his feelings. If he tries to stop Ozzy, and he is killed in the process, he can die happy, knowing that he did everything in his power to try to stop the atrocity, and doesn't have to live with his feelings either. Win-win for Rorschach.
I can't really agree with this. Jung's feeling came from the idea of agreeableness. Feelers are generally much better able to vent how they agree/disagree with things in ways that others accept on some level. It's why it's a strength for them; thinkers on the flip side have problems making effective use of what is agreeable to them. Rorschach's feeling represents this notion. It's problematic for him and could therefore be argued as an unconscious motivator, the destructive nature of his inferior shadow. In his case, it's not so much his thinking that causes him issues, but how he feels about things that he feels necessary to always act out; in theory if he had developed his thinking ego more, he could suppress the destructive urges and control them with his thinking.

Anyway though, I think it's a common bias for thinkers in MBTI to project their own destructive feeling nature onto feeling types and see it as unintelligent and carnal. But it's not conceptually correct, nor does it paint the proper intellectual strength of what it means to be a feeling type.
 
Local time
Today, 03:42
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
142
Location
Canada, eh?
#66
Coen brother movies are peppered with INxP characters. Barton Fink and Inside Llewyn Davis come to mind, for example. And the main character from Limitless might be an INTP. Or maybe he's just a tragic ENTP. I don't know. Edward Norton's character in The Illusionist comes off as INTP, as well.

Any others I can think of have been listed already...
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Local time
Yesterday, 21:42
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,138
#67
Scarlett Johanson from Lost in Translation might be thought of as INTP, not sure, more of a suggestion.

The main character from Brazil maybe - kind of a 1984 esqe movie.




The weird thing is, I've got plenty of recommendations for anime INTPs, but not movies...I wonder if that's a representation of the movie industry as a whole.
 

Pyropyro

Magos Biologis
Local time
Today, 15:42
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
4,050
Location
Philippines
#68
Scarlett Johanson from Lost in Translation might be thought of as INTP, not sure, more of a suggestion.

The main character from Brazil maybe - kind of a 1984 esqe movie.




The weird thing is, I've got plenty of recommendations for anime INTPs, but not movies...I wonder if that's a representation of the movie industry as a whole.
It's probably because of the market (I'm talking about mainstream movies here), people want to watch movies where the hero get things done so Exxx's or xxxJ's are more favored as protagonists. INTP's are more of an abstract kind of people and might be better suited as supporting characters rather than protagonists.
 
Top Bottom