Stephen Colbert

[Cone]

ESFp? Perhaps?

[Zeia]

http://alisonpace.typepad.com/photos..._colbert_2.jpg

[Raver]

he always struck me as an ENFp or an ENTp because it looks like he uses often, might be wrong though.

[uninspired]

ENTP ENTP ENTP ENTP ENTP. Wacky, offbeat sense of humor, lateral thinking, logical, wickedly intellectual, loves to debate for the sake of debating, etc. ENTP!

[oyburger]

The charcter might be, but Colbert the person is not the same thing as Colbert on the show. So, which one are we talking about?

[Gilly]

Definitely a sensor. Probably an extrovert. Judger more than likely than perceiver. Not sure about T/F.

[UDP]

I like that show as well. I don't really think ESFp...

but are we talking about the guy, or his stage persona?

[oyburger]

I like that show as well. I don't really think ESFp...

but are we talking about the guy, or his stage persona?

Exactly, I think people get confused about his stage persona and believe that he's actually like that, but he's not.

[kopernikus]

I think he is ESTP. He seems to want to win over the victims/guests that come to his show by trapping them in comical and absurd Ti taken to the extreme ("I nailed you, didn't I?"). Of course it's basically the same thing another ESTP, Bill O'Reilly does, so it works really well...

[Dioklecian]

I think he is ESTP. He seems to want to win over the victims/guests that come to his show by trapping them in comical and absurd Ti taken to the extreme ("I nailed you, didn't I?"). Of course it's basically the same thing another ESTP, Bill O'Reilly does, so it works really well...

ESFJ

[Elro]

Here's an interview with him out of character, although it's audio only.

Audio: NPR Interview
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4464017

[aestrivex]

in character, colbert might be an ISTj.

out of character i have no idea. ENTp is certainly possible.

[uninspired]

He may be different in real life, but for his show he writes his own material (did that for both his show and the Daily Show) and chooses the topics of discussion/parody, so that says something about his manner of thinking and sense of humor. Second, I don't know how you could say he's a sensor - he's much more enmeshed in the creative, idea realm than in the physical realm.
Also, to address this:
"He seems to want to win over the victims/guests that come to his show by trapping them in comical and absurd Ti taken to the extreme ("I nailed you, didn't I?")
Yes, there's there, but the "absurd" part is enhanced by - which explains the creative, nerdy element in his humor.
Other tidbits - he studied philosophy at Hampden-Sydney in Virginia before he studied acting at Northwestern, so that speaks to his preference for . I don't see him display much - that doesn't seem like a priority for him, nor (if you have an example of this, please explain, because I can't think of one).
To further illustrate his ENTP-ness, here's a statement from his commencement address at Knox college:
"Now will saying 'yes' get you in trouble at times? Will saying 'yes' lead you to doing some foolish things? Yes, it will. But don't be afraid to be a fool. Remember, you cannot be both young and wise. Young people who pretend to be wise to the ways of the world are mostly just cynics. Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don't learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us. Cynics always say no. But saying 'yes' begins things. Saying 'yes' is how things grow. Saying 'yes' leads to knowledge. 'Yes' is for young people. So for as long as you have the strength to, say 'yes'."
- courtesy of wikipedia

He encourages people to take risks, to transcend intellectual boundaries, and to be open-minded. This is characteristic of most types, but it strikes me as very ENTP with its emphasis on constantly learning. He also doesn't inject a lot of emotionality into his speaking, so that might speak to him having a preference for thinking.

Lastly, Bill O'Reilly is NOT an ESTP. He's a complete and utter ENTJ, and an unhealthy one at that.

[aestrivex]

ok, i buy that idea. my idea for ISTj was solely based on the fact that he (in character) doesnt seem exactly the most open minded fellow. but your INTj argument makes sense.

[Rocky]

ENTP ENTP ENTP ENTP ENTP. Wacky, offbeat sense of humor, lateral thinking, logical, wickedly intellectual, loves to debate for the sake of debating, etc. ENTP!

agreed

[Elro]

Bumping

Colbert out of character:

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=OvLS4Jv6Tpw[/youtube]
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=6Sj-i10SH_s[/youtube]
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=JKAXyGEslyg[/youtube]
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=aDdqd8DdrYM[/youtube]
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=3GwSfa4IJFA[/youtube]

[discojoe]

INTj.

[Suomea]

Alpha NT definitely....... might lean more towards ENTp but I can see INTj working as well....... might also be why people miscategorize him for an ESFp since we can look like ESFps at times.

[HERO]

I like him a lot. He's cute. I like him more than the other guy. I haven't watched The Colbert Report for too long, so I didn't know what all the hype and fuss was about until I realized how funny he really is. And unfortunately there probably aren't too many things that make me laugh or that I find amusing considering I'm such a tragic (little) fellow (of tragic proportions) [or an insignificant snake with a rhapsodic love of (Greek) tragedy (like in Buffy)].

Anyway, I can definitely say that watching some of his shows has definitely helped elevate my mood for some moments in the past months. What other things have made me laugh in the past? Let's see -- Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult, Hamlet 2, a couple of episodes of PSI FACTOR: Chronicles of the Paranormal (Anton Hendricks is really funny), at least one episode from Battlestar Galactica (namely Tigh Me Up, Tigh Me Down), a lot of episodes of Desperate Housewives (I still love that show), Mars Attacks, Ghost, some episodes from Buffy and Angel, etc. Most of those probably wouldn't be as funny if I didn't watch them with my Mom, although my Mom couldn't watch Hamlet 2, and chances are that I wouldn't find it as funny if I saw it a second time. And I probably didn't laugh that much for Mars Attacks or Ghost, yet my Mom and 'former stepdad' liked them, and I thought the movies were okay. I should probably see the other Naked Gun movies.

Here are some quotes from last night's episode of the Colbert Report. The interview was with John Bradshaw who wrote the book Dog Sense: How the New Science of Dog Behavior Can Make You a Better Friend to Your Pet. I didn't quote the entire interview (just a couple of fragments):

Fragment I

Stephen Colbert: I have taught my dog good and evil.

John Bradshaw: That's a good trick.

Stephen Colbert: So how are we good friends to our dog and how are we not good friends to our dog, and has that changed over the years?

John Bradshaw: I think the way we think of ourselves as being friends to our dogs, or not friends, has changed; and that is what the new science is about. It's about really looking at the dog with fresh eyes, and understanding that the dog really wants to be with us.

Stephen Colbert: Man's best friend.

John Bradshaw: Man's best friend. He's not a wolf disguised as man's best friend. He is actually man's best friend. And that's the new science.

Stephen Colbert: So, what do you mean? There's no wolf in there?

John Bradshaw: There is wolf. The DNA says wolf. That's undeniable. But domestication has changed...

Stephen Colbert: You just denied it. You just denied it.

John Bradshaw: I didn't.

Stephen Colbert: Yeah, you said he's not a wolf.

John Bradshaw: He's not a wolf in terms of how he regards the world. DNA does not tell you how to look at the world.

Stephen Colbert: You give me a sense that, in the book you give a sense that we're maybe not treating our dogs well, that we're asking too much of them.


Fragment II

John Bradshaw: There's another thing you need to train your dog to do, and that's how to deal with you not being there, how to cope on its own.

Stephen Colbert: Xanax.

John Bradshaw: And, with that...

Stephen Colbert: Come on, it works, baby, it works. Welcome to the 21st century of dog ownership.

John Bradshaw: It works in terms of calming the dog down on the outside, but does it work calming the dog down on the inside.

Stephen Colbert: Ahh... how would we ever know? He can't tell us. He can't tell us.

[krieger]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_636774.html

click to 3:10 in the video in that link for a comparison with a real alpha NT. krugman (ENTp > INTj) is a thousand times more awkward and poorly suited to playing the social "game" than Colbert. there is also virtually no chemistry between the two.

[Gilly]

Personally I think Colbert is an Aristocratic. Ej. Definitely Ej though, he is so on top of shit, its awesome.

[Krig the Viking]

I speculate that he's an ILE playing an ESI character (inspired by Bill O'Reilly, who I think is ESI). Essentially, Colbert is parodying his Conflictor, which is what makes his style unique.

[krieger]

I speculate that he's an ILE playing an ESI character (inspired by Bill O'Reilly, who I think is ESI). Colbert is parodying his Conflictor, which is what makes his style unique.

sounds like:
a. a load of crap (if you need this elaborate a rationalization of what he is, you should probably be looking for a simpler explanation and apply occam's razor)
b. something that stubbornly ignores the comparison with Krugman that i just pointed out
c. a tacit endorsement of an ESFp typing

[Krig the Viking]

sounds like:
a. a load of crap (if you need this elaborate a rationalization of what he is, you should probably be looking for a simpler explanation and apply occam's razor)
b. something that stubbornly ignores the comparison with Krugman that i just pointed out
c. a tacit endorsement of an ESFp typing

a. Colbert's act is clearly a parody. He's not "being himself" when he's on his show. Consequently, there are two personalities we need to type: the real Colbert, and his pompous TV persona. In my opinion, ILE and ESI are the best fits for those two types. Occam's Razor is about the simplest explanation that explains all the facts. You seem to be taking it to mean something like "the truth is always simple", which is manifestly not the case.

b. I skimmed the thread and didn't read your post. In my opinion, based on my observations of the type, Colbert's behaviour is within the range possible for an ILE.

c. I don't understand the reasoning behind your non-sequitur here. It seems fairly obvious to me that neither Colbert's real personality nor his persona are SEE, and I made no claim otherwise, explicit or implicit.

[krieger]

a. Colbert's act is clearly a parody. He's not "being himself" when he's on his show. Consequently, there are two personalities we need to type: the real Colbert, and his pompous TV persona. In my opinion, ILE and ESI are the best fits for those two types.

there is always a mesh between the two. the greater the divergence between the real personality and the "persona" the less likely the impersonation is to succeed. to suggest he successfully manages to impersonate something completely opposite to him in every typological respect is like saying he has superhuman powers. this is not an explanation to be favored over more conventional alternatives.

b. I skimmed the thread and didn't read your post. In my opinion, based on my observations of the type, Colbert's behaviour is within the range possible for an ILE.

yes, it shows. you clearly haven't done your due diligence here.

c. I don't understand the reasoning behind your non-sequitur here. It seems fairly obvious to me that neither Colbert's real personality nor his persona are SEE, and I made no claim otherwise, explicit or implicit.

if you see both enough reason to call part of his personality and behavior EP on one hand and gamma SF on the other, you can not reasonably claim there is nothing about him that suggests the combination of the two to you, namely ESFp.

[rat1]

LII

[marooned]

I like the correlation of being on top of shit with Ej.

So far my impression of Colbert is ILE, but I can change my mind.

[Gilly]

SLI

Introvert? Fe PoLR? Are you kidding me?

[jughead]

Yeah thats my problem with this typing as well.

SLI: soft blankness; internal independence; hard to impress; not easily excited; emotionally cool
Mmmmm not feeling that so much.

[Gilly]

LSE I can see. SLI no fucking way. My original typing was ESE-Si, but I tend to think he's aristocratic.

[Krig the Viking]

there is always a mesh between the two. the greater the divergence between the real personality and the "persona" the less likely the impersonation is to succeed. to suggest he successfully manages to impersonate something completely opposite to him in every typological respect is like saying he has superhuman powers. this is not an explanation to be favored over more conventional alternatives.

An ILE could never successfully fool anyone into thinking he was ESI for any length of time, no. But that's not what Colbert is doing; he's parodying an ESI, from an ILE perspective. ILE uses Fi and Se clumsily and unsubtly, which is terrible for impersonation, but effective for satire, because he doesn't have to worry about subtlety; he just exaggerates everything he doesn't like or finds funny about ESIs.

yes, it shows. you clearly haven't done your due diligence here.

I've gone back and read over the thread in more detail, and I see nothing that would change my opinion. A lot of short posts with mostly unsubstantiated opinions -- which is fine, but not enough to have any effect on my reasoning.

Uninspired has a pretty good assessment of his character, though.

if you see both enough reason to call part of his personality and behavior EP on one hand and gamma SF on the other, you can not reasonably claim there is nothing about him that suggests the combination of the two to you, namely ESFp.

In the sense that it's possible someone could see his underlying Extraverted temperament, and combine that with his Gamma SF mask, and incorrectly arrive at the conclusion that he's ESFp, then sure, I could see how someone could make that mistake. That's probably exactly what happened. I don't see how that means I've "tacitly endorsed" a typing of SEE though, unless you're using a different definition of "endorsed" than I'm familiar with.

I could see an argument being made for EIE or something. ILE still seems most likely to me, though.

[krieger]

An ILE could never successfully fool anyone into thinking he was ESI for any length of time, no. But that's not what Colbert is doing; he's parodying an ESI, from an ILE perspective.

blah, blah, blah. again this irrelevant focus on a vacuous distinction. you continue to rationalize the combination of opposite, incompatible factors in one person when there are far less incongruent explanations available.

ILE uses Fi and Se clumsily and unsubtly, which is terrible for impersonation, but effective for satire, because he doesn't have to worry about subtlety; he just exaggerates everything he doesn't like or finds funny about ESIs.

except there is NOTHING clumsy about his S and F function usage. he has MASTERFUL control over them. are even looking at the guy? are your eyesockets connected to your brain?

any success this guy has at using Ne or Ti is a matter of him having the backing of a team of writers and his shows being heavily scripted (just listen to those automatic laughs; fake as hell). this can not be said of his SF function usage. it's his skill as an entertainer that he personally gets paid for. alpha NT theorization or "designing skill" has nothing to do with. again, look at Krugman for a real ENTp.

I've gone back and read over the thread in more detail, and I see nothing that would change my opinion. A lot of short posts with mostly unsubstantiated opinions -- which is fine, but not enough to have any effect on my reasoning.

Uninspired has a pretty good assessment of his character, though.

you still haven't looked at the interview between him and Paul Krugman. the only way you can redeem your position is by explaining why despite the massive discrepancy in behavior and general appearance between the two, you apologetically maintain they can be identicals:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_636774.html

watch it this time.

In the sense that it's possible someone could see his underlying Extraverted temperament, and combine that with his Gamma SF mask, and incorrectly arrive at the conclusion that he's ESFp, then sure, I could see how someone could make that mistake. That's probably exactly what happened. I don't see how that means I've "tacitly endorsed" a typing of SEE though, unless you're using a different definition of "endorsed" than I'm familiar with.

you provide zero justification for why such a conclusion would be "incorrect" and "mistaken" despite that you repeat that you see the characteristics of both an extraverted temperament and Gamma SF characteristics. this an admission of dogmatism if i ever saw one. i've never met someone so overtly immunized to reason.

[Krig the Viking]

Honestly, labcoat, I don't think there's much point in continuing this discussion. I'm LII and you're LSI. I find your LSI focus on details at the expense of the big picture exasperating, and you find my focus on generalities at the expense of specifics to be irrelevant. You keep trying to narrow the focus to a piece-by-piece sequence of specific details, while I'm trying to widen the focus to a broad overview of the whole topic at once. You have no patience for contemplating alternate possibilities, and I get annoyed by your blunt, "pushy" tone. I've been in the same situation with at least two other LSIs, and the debate just goes in circles without either side moving an inch, and the only result is a lot of frustration on both sides.

Debates between Kindred types are rarely useful, because we're going in different directions on the same topic, and we tend to view each other's approach as impractical and pointless to even think about. That's certainly true in my case in this instance. We would probably get along socially, but this sort of thing is fruitless. Let's just save our breath, eh?

(As far as I know, you still self-type as LII? If so, the above will probably just annoy you more than anything. But at this point, it seems pretty clear to me that you're LSI, based on your writing style and our interactions, which in my opinion are much better described by Kindred than Identity.)

[Crispy]

Do me! Do me!

[717495]

Possibly Alpha NT.

[Logos]

To support Krig's assessment: Here's Stephen Colbert on Bill O'Reilly, who even thinks that Colbert is playing a parody of himself.



ETA: I also think that IEE should be considered.

[krieger]

what kind of brick for a brain do you need to have to think that "parody" is of an ISFj, of all types you can think of. he rattles on and on about irrelevancies while spinning conversationally redundant verbal fluff. irrational and extroverted to the max. there is NO NEED for a story about parodizing and pretending to explain what he does in there if his real temperament is EP. he is just being his chaotically garbled self.

so, no. your video doesn't support Krig's assessment. it debunks it.

[Gilly]

The character parodies LSE.

[Logos]

what kind of brick for a brain do you need to have to think that "parody" is of an ISFj, of all types you can think of. he rattles on and on about irrelevancies while spinning conversationally redundant verbal fluff. irrational and extroverted to the max. there is NO NEED for a story about parodizing and pretending to explain what he does in there if his real temperament is EP. he is just being his chaotically garbled self.

so, no. your video doesn't support Krig's assessment. it debunks it.

Probably the kind of brain that does not need to resort to ad hominem arguments.

[golden]

The character parodies LSE.

I know an LSE who worships this man.