Any thoughts on their types?
My initial impression of the actress was EII because I see no Se in her (but her voice *haunts* me in the movie) and Affleck has to be a beta NF, I suspect IEI.
Obviously this doesn't answer my own question....help?
Gone Girl
Any thoughts on their types?
My initial impression of the actress was EII because I see no Se in her (but her voice *haunts* me in the movie) and Affleck has to be a beta NF, I suspect IEI.
Obviously this doesn't answer my own question....help?
Delta ST
Gone Girl
Intertype Relationship between Nick and Amy? Supervison maybe?
Amy: EII
Nick: EP Temperament
“Tampon commercial, detergent commercial, maxi pad commercial, windex commercial - you'd think all women do is clean and bleed.”“It’s a very difficult era in which to be a person, just a real, actual person, instead of a collection of personality traits selected from an endless Automat of characters.”“Because isn’t that the point of every relationship: to be known by someone else, to be understood? He gets me. She gets me. Isn’t that the simple magic phrase?”“I was told love should be unconditional. That's the rule, everyone says so. But if love has no boundaries, no limits, no conditions, why should anyone try to do the right thing ever? If I know I am loved no matter what, where is the challenge? I am supposed to love Nick despite all his shortcomings. And Nick is supposed to love me despite my quirks. But clearly, neither of us does. It makes me think that everyone is very wrong, that love should have many conditions. Love should require both partners to be their very best at all times.”“Men always say that as the defining compliment, don’t they? She’s a cool girl. Being the Cool Girl means I am a hot, brilliant, funny woman who adores football, poker, dirty jokes, and burping, who plays video games, drinks cheap beer, loves threesomes and anal sex, and jams hot dogs and hamburgers into her mouth like she’s hosting the world’s biggest culinary gang bang while somehow maintaining a size 2, because Cool Girls are above all hot. Hot and understanding. Cool Girls never get angry; they only smile in a chagrined, loving manner and let their men do whatever they want. Go ahead, shit on me, I don’t mind, I’m the Cool Girl.
Men actually think this girl exists. Maybe they’re fooled because so many women are willing to pretend to be this girl. For a long time Cool Girl offended me. I used to see men – friends, coworkers, strangers – giddy over these awful pretender women, and I’d want to sit these men down and calmly say: You are not dating a woman, you are dating a woman who has watched too many movies written by socially awkward men who’d like to believe that this kind of woman exists and might kiss them. I’d want to grab the poor guy by his lapels or messenger bag and say: The bitch doesn’t really love chili dogs that much – no one loves chili dogs that much! And the Cool Girls are even more pathetic: They’re not even pretending to be the woman they want to be, they’re pretending to be the woman a man wants them to be. Oh, and if you’re not a Cool Girl, I beg you not to believe that your man doesn’t want the Cool Girl. It may be a slightly different version – maybe he’s a vegetarian, so Cool Girl loves seitan and is great with dogs; or maybe he’s a hipster artist, so Cool Girl is a tattooed, bespectacled nerd who loves comics. There are variations to the window dressing, but believe me, he wants Cool Girl, who is basically the girl who likes every fucking thing he likes and doesn’t ever complain. (How do you know you’re not Cool Girl? Because he says things like: “I like strong women.” If he says that to you, he will at some point fuck someone else. Because “I like strong women” is code for “I hate strong women.”)”“The ones who are not soul-mated – the ones who have settled – are even more dismissive of my singleness: It’s not that hard to find someone to marry, they say. No relationship is perfect, they say – they, who make do with dutiful sex and gassy bedtime rituals, who settle for TV as conversation, who believe that husbandly capitulation – yes, honey, okay, honey – is the same as concord. He’s doing what you tell him to do because he doesn’t care enough to argue, I think. Your petty demands simply make him feel superior, or resentful, and someday he will fuck his pretty, young coworker who asks nothing of him, and you will actually be shocked.
Give me a man with a little fight in him, a man who calls me on my bullshit. (But who also kind of likes my bullshit.) And yet: Don’t land me in one of those relationships where we’re always pecking at each other, disguising insults as jokes, rolling our eyes and ‘playfully’ scrapping in front of our friends, hoping to lure them to our side of an argument they could not care less about. Those awful if only relationships: This marriage would be great if only… and you sense the if only list is a lot longer than either of them realizes.
So I know I am right not to settle, but it doesn’t make me feel better as my friends pair off and I stay home on Friday night with a bottle of wine and make myself an extravagant meal and tell myself, This is perfect, as if I’m the one dating me. As I go to endless rounds of parties and bar nights, perfumed and sprayed and hopeful, rotating myself around the room like some dubious dessert. I go on dates with men who are nice and good-looking and smart – perfect-on-paper men who make me feel like I’m in a foreign land, trying to explain myself, trying to make myself known. Because isn’t that the point of every relationship: to be known by someone else, to be understood? He gets me. She gets me. Isn’t that the simple magic phrase?
So you suffer through the night with the perfect-on-paper man – the stutter of jokes misunderstood, the witty remarks lobbed and missed. Or maybe he understands that you’ve made a witty remark but, unsure of what to do with it, he holds it in his hand like some bit of conversational phlegm he will wipe away later. You spend another hour trying to find each other, to recognise each other, and you drink a little too much and try a little too hard. And you go home to a cold bed and think, That was fine. And your life is a long line of fine.”
Last edited by Moonbeaux Rainfox; 04-05-2015 at 07:42 PM.
EII and LSE duals
From the movie, Amy seems either LSI, or ILI. I'd say ESI but she just seems logical. Also, comes off very IJ but, her type of strategizing and elaborate planning makes me think ILI. Not that types such as LSI or ESI don't make plans but I think ILIs really delve deeply into the various contingencies and scenarios that can result. I agree, I think Nick is clearly EP. I think he is also ethical. So I suppose either SEE or IEE.
Nick is xEE (IEE most likely) and I'm not sure about her - i guess either LSI or LIE-Ni.
I thought about conflict, but it feels like he can't hurt or control her like she can. She is always one step ahead.Originally Posted by darya
Last edited by Moonbeaux Rainfox; 04-06-2015 at 08:21 AM.
Book Amy seemed more of an ethical type. Her inner monologue was one big ethical ramble (like see quotes).
Movie Amy could seem stereotypical logical . But the movie might not capture her inner motivations.
Last edited by Moonbeaux Rainfox; 07-12-2015 at 08:31 AM.
I haven't read the book, so I'm discussing strictly movie. The actress is EII most likely, but I really can't see it for the (movie) character.
I enjoyed the movie. But I've decided to not read the book. Pike rocks the whole femme fatale trope. But in the end it's unbelievable, which is probably why I liked watching it. Affleck was a fucking pussy though. If he had any sense in him he would have snapped that bitches neck when he hugged him upon their reunion, in front of the cameras.
Thinking thoroughly, I'd type Amy LSI 3w4 and Nick IEE 6w7.
okay i watched this.
Amy - LSI E6
Nick - SLI E6
EDIT
*possible spoilers*
the movie's first half is clearly more delta-oriented. nick's whole side of the story is like a delta take on the story, and the latter half is more beta-oriented. the first half focuses on themes of nick being a good husband, and their marriage being perfect, but then nick slowly unraveling to not be so pure or innocent, and you're left with this judgey feeling like the movie is trying to frame nick as someone who did something wrong therefore he must be a criminal. it's a very subtle judgey delta Fi thing, i'm not sure if everyone will pick up on it. the latter half is much more choppy, and less concerned with placing blame on someone and more on the truth, and i'm not entirely sure how it's different from the first half but it is and i can't be bothered to list all the ways in which it strikes me as more beta-y.
anyway, so i type nick some delta (i could buy IEE, but i'm biased since in my head i've always associated Ben Affleck = SLI). for most of the movie, i thought Amy was some E4 EII also and that she was acting out E4 revenge fantasies and so forth, but it becomes clearer in the end when she kills whatshisface that she's not doing any of this for vengeance, she's doing it for survival. and that completely shifts the way i was looking at the character i think. the scheming, cerebral, long-range planning sort of nature is much more at home with LSI, and the neurosis of never fully trusting anyone, even your spouse, makes me think E6.
nick is similar to this, but he could also be E3, i'm not sure. nick is far more focused on his image and how he comes across as to people. he tends to naturally smile in front of the camera without meaning to, for example, and that's such an E3 thing, that is, flitting through his various personas automatically and naturally without necessarily meaning to be manipulative. and of course everyone paints him as a two-faced shit-head, like people do with E3s often. he barely even understands why everyone hates him.
anyway, yeah, so to be more accurate it should be:
nick - delta irrational, probable E3
amy - LSI probably E6
There is the INFp touch in this.
“Tampon commercial, detergent commercial, maxi pad commercial, windex commercial - you'd think all women do is clean and bleed.”
A take on Napoleon's idea.
"Women are nothing but machines for producing children."
“It’s a very difficult era in which to be a person, just a real, actual person, instead of a collection of personality traits selected from an endless Automat of characters.”
Well. This should relate to someone who doesn't like falseness. Like in that other book. The kid who hates movies because they corrupted him. Catcher in the rye.
A lot of that you aren't being true type mood is found in this.
"Men actually think this girl exists. Maybe they’re fooled because so many women are willing to pretend to be this girl. For a long time Cool Girl offended me. I used to see men – friends, coworkers, strangers – giddy over these awful pretender women, and I’d want to sit these men down and calmly say: You are not dating a woman, you are dating a woman who has watched too many movies written by socially awkward men who’d like to believe that this kind of woman exists and might kiss them. I’d want to grab the poor guy by his lapels or messenger bag and say: The bitch doesn’t really love chili dogs that much – no one loves chili dogs that much! And the Cool Girls are even more pathetic: They’re not even pretending to be the woman they want to be, they’re pretending to be the woman a man wants them to be. Oh, and if you’re not a Cool Girl, I beg you not to believe that your man doesn’t want the Cool Girl. It may be a slightly different version – maybe he’s a vegetarian, so Cool Girl loves seitan and is great with dogs; or maybe he’s a hipster artist, so Cool Girl is a tattooed, bespectacled nerd who loves comics. There are variations to the window dressing, but believe me, he wants Cool Girl, who is basically the girl who likes every fucking thing he likes and doesn’t ever complain. (How do you know you’re not Cool Girl? Because he says things like: “I like strong women.” If he says that to you, he will at some point fuck someone else. Because “I like strong women” is code for “I hate strong women.”)”
But yeah, take from this what you will. Not going into it too far, but someone has a complex where they think they are inferior. It is a form of paranoia. Very simple to understand, very well developed story. I almost felt like watching that movie or reading the book. Almost.
So I assume there's the implicit understanding that spoilers are okay here. But yes, for anyone who's gotten this far and hasn't seen the movie/read the book and wants to. Stop reading because spoiler's will ruin your experience
Anyway, while reading the book I got the strong sense that Nick was an SLI. He seemed to continually bottle up emotions and to not want others to interfere with his life. He was happy just being left alone. He didn't really think about the outside world especially his wife much. Other stuff. Amy I thought was SEE before the plot twist and then the plot twist and I didn't know what to think any more. Type Evil.
Warm Regards,
Clowns & Entropy
I love David Fincher. The score for this film was amazing.
I really enjoyed this movie. I would suggest it. I would also
suggest the book, though only if you really and truly enjoy
reading.
I dont give a shit about the character's types, I just wanted
to actually add some commentary on the film and book.
Everything interests me but nothing holds me.
Amy Dunne is ILE-Ti 3w4 sx/so similar to Iago (ILE-Ti 3w4 so/sx).
Not EII. EII would make her the same type as Jodi Arias (EII-Ne 3w4 sx/so). Fat chance. Look at Jodi Arias' reaction to having been cheated on. She just showed up there and stabbed him to death, no cognition for intricate plots or mastermind capabilities. The character of Tom Ripley was IEE-Fi 3w4 sx/so with a cognition for interpersonal dynamics as well as mirroring and imitation. [ILE-Ti utilizes a more cunning cognition in the service of whatever enneagram character type said cognition is running on.] Cunning implies creative, creatively weaving a narrative by rearranging the parts of reality recalls Dominika from Red Sparrow. See Red Sparrow thread where I wrote:
"She bends and manipulates objects to her task by perceiving their inherent possibilities. The world is Dominika’s chess board. Ti-creative gives her the data to weave a convincing narrative when she needs to walk her uncle into a compromising position."
"The basic objects in reality contain all these possibilities for her, which she cognizes through her interactions with external reality. Little by little, she constructs/improvises a rather clever plan for evening the score with her uncle by framing him as the traitor “Marble”. This culminates in his execution."
That could have been written about Amy Dunne minus the fact that Dominika is not a psychopath. A psychopathic ILE has the same cognition as a non-psychopathic ILE. Iago is a psychopathic ILE:
"Bradley writes that Iago "illustrates in the most perfect combination the two facts concerning evil, which seem to have impressed Shakespeare the most", the first being that "the fact that perfectly sane people exist in whom fellow-feeling of any kind is so weak that an almost absolute egoism becomes possible to them", with the second being "that such evil is compatible, and even appears to ally itself easily, with exceptional powers of will and intellect"."
That's Amy Dunne. Iago.
Last edited by Kill4Me; 09-30-2018 at 07:08 PM.
Seems to be a benefit relationship.
Film:
Amy - LIE-Ni 1w9
Nick - SLE-Ti 3w2
Book:
Amy - Batshit insane LSI-Se 8w7
Nick - ILI-Te 3w2 trying to be Delta
IMO the only ILE Ti in this movie are Tannee Bolt and Greta
Amy is ExI and Nick is LxE.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
