Printable View
I see Expat has her listed as an ISFj but I'm not convinced.
OK so I have to think about it a bit more and I'm going out for most of the day. I do think Fi>Fe but I am not convinced about ISFj.
quotes:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au.../meg_ryan.html
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000212/b...k_qt_sm#quotes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcxFUh7NXls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aHXZuieMJk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XcGSgbmHoM
i think isfj
What a horrible interview. :(
INTp seems to make sense. She plays the role of an ISFj very convincingly though.
she's hot
Actually I think that interview makes a good case for ISFj, but INTp is also possible. Anyway her functional preferences are Gamma.
She's not hot and she deserves death.
I don't know if that interview was picked deliberately, but it recieved a lot of notoriety for other reasons - some people siding with Meg Ryan, others with Michael Parkinson (the interviewer) about who was to blame for it going a bit wrong. I agree with socionics.com that Parkinson is a ENTp, and don't find anything particular wrong with socionics.com's typing of Meg Ryan as a ISTp.
She reminds me of ISTps (I've known quite a few) who are in a tight spot + under pressure with nowhere to go - she's in an unfamiliar environment. If she was in a one-on-one conversation with Parkinson, without people watching and Parkinson's formulaic style of questioning (which, by it's very nature is prying into her life and making her react - in a :Fe: type way? E.g. Parkinson attempts to help her by putting words in her mouth, so that she has the opportunity to continue, or to refute completely what he says - but it fails horribly and she is always going 'hmmm? what...? what ever you say? and so on.).
So, no I don't think she's ISFj :) .
Yeah, he was trying to give a little common ground, but there wasn't any... she just kept saying that she disagrees with him.Quote:
E.g. Parkinson attempts to help her by putting words in her mouth, so that she has the opportunity to continue, or to refute completely what he says - but it fails horribly
Having those fashion people there was a big part of the problem, imo. The volume was quiet, so I couldn't hear what was said about Meg Ryan's shoes, but I'm curious. I noticed them as she was walking in because she's obviously not used to wearing shoes like that and was uncomfortable. If there hadn't been fashion people there, she would have been able to just sit down and not think about whatever it is her wardrobe person picked out for her and go on with the interview, but instead their presence made her feel even less comfortable. She had just stated that she didn't see fashion as important, yet there she was sitting there with them wearing some outfit someone else told her to wear and she felt out of place in. I guess I'm saying that their presence called attention to it.
He was on one side of her assuming that she values Fe and not understanding what it is about Fe that she doesn't value, and the fashion people were on the other side of her not understanding what it is about Si that she doesn't value. Nothing she could have said would have changed this or made it any better, and she had to sit there and explain herself to those people.
Alpha quadra values vs. Gamma quadra values.
I agree with ST.
PS: BY ST I mean Subterranean
ESI is a pretty safe bet, I'd say. I can't see the case for ILI.
Seems ISFj to me. She keeps criticizing him for lacking Fi sensitivity.
More observations:
She doesn't respond well when he throws out Ne observations: "we seem to have seen two different movies", "What would you do if you were me now?"
"Sometimes your life seems to choose you" => a rational statement.
Plus she has typical ISxj mannerisms, as it seems like she's really struggling with forming responses to his questions, which are for the most part unexpected.
Ditto.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
With Ni values, perhaps?Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
The only other type I could possibly see would be LIE. She seems VERY clearly rational, Fi>Fe preference, with a good dose of Se. Her speech and mannerisms remind me a lot of my EII sister (but much, much more aggressive/accusational/confrontational), and, as THA says, she seems to stumble and get frustrated when he shoots Ne at her.
yeah, that makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
Ok, I actually watched half of the interview, and she seems smarter than I gave her credit for, but she still does this in her movies:
"Look at me, I'm Meg Ryan! I'm cute!"
Onto which I still impose the death penalty.
:? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
That seem more irrational to me.
Joy, this is straight out of Smilexian socionics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
I think INTp > ISFj, but there are some good arguments for ISFj here too.
I had seen her listed as ISTp at one point and that didn't feel just right either.
I wonder what Implied thinks. She might be a good person to look at this.
I'd have to see the context in which that statement was made. What exactly is an "object of thought"? Assuming I agree (and I don't know that I do), that doesn't mean that this concept applies to what Meg Ryan said.Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
I see irrational types are more likely to adapt to situations as they develop and respond accordingly. I see rationals as more likely to change the situation to fit their plan than to change their actions to fit the circumstances.
Static change the situationQuote:
Originally Posted by Joy
Dynamic change the actions
I considered that, but I don't think it works all that well.Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
EJ: Change the situation because they're proactive.
EP: May change the situation, may change their actions. Whatever seems like a good idea at the time.
IJ: Having given this a moment's though... I'm not sure they really do anything? (in regards to what we're talking about) I'll have to think on that some more. It seems to me that they'll continue to do what they were doing before rather than adapt to the situation or do something to try to change the situation. If they adapt, it's not quickly.
IP: "go with the flow" speaks for itself :lol:
In my experience statics are more likely to have a model of reality and they want to mold reality to it (introverted judgement). Dynamics mold reality too, but they don't do it with a precise static scheme in mind, so in this sense they more easily adapt to changing circumstancesQuote:
Originally Posted by Joy
EJ restricts existing motionQuote:
Originally Posted by Joy
EP promotes new motion
IJ restricts new motion
IP promotes existing motion
All temperments seek to "change" something; introverts just wait for an impetus, wheres extroverts create one.
If that's the case, how exactly are EJs proactive? (And where did you get that concept from Gilligan?)
So I watched the interview and I was impressed with her reasoning in light of what was going on. She didnt back down or become apologetic for her viewpoint which I think was cool. The man was invasive from her standpoint, clearly putting her on the spot to the point where she was almost leaning out of the screan in reaction to him. When it was first introduced that she could be ISTP I thought 'rubbish' but I could see how that could be true. She did not seem ISFJ to me at all. INTP is another opption though.
EJs follow trends, rather than starting them - EPs put satellites into orbit, EJs utilise them when they go past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
That makes more sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subterranean
I don't have a strong stance either way. But I'd say the case for ILI is that she keeps trying to turn the interview around to get across her own ideas and insights. She has some particular ideas that she seems to have thought about a lot, and she doesn't mind being argumentative about them. She's also very willing to break the harmony of the situation to get across what she considers to be the truth of the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
But I'm not really sure about her type. She seems intelligent and thoughtful. I don't know why she was criticized so much for that interview.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan
i noticed this. there's also a weird push-pull with her and that interviewer (he's trying to lead her in one direction and she's trying to lead/take it where she wants it to go as well.)
i see where you guys are getting "ISTp-hating-the-whole-interview" thing and i see where gilly gets straight-backed rational. that seems like a better case for low/unvalued :Si: too. she does seem to "make more sense" in gamma than anything.
what are you speaking of specifically here? i admit i haven't watched the whole interview, but he seems sort of invasive. like the more she closes up and tries to maintain distance/privacy, the more he keeps sort of pushing at her and trying to get her to "open up" or something. i'd be bugged, too if someone were prying at me like that. what type do you think the interviewer is, fwiw?Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
I am not sure if that is the right way to word it, but the way you present and are interpreting the differences in temperments holds value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
Because she was being an unfriendly, uppity bitch?Quote:
I don't know why she was criticized so much for that interview.
There's better ways to state your viewpoint without coming across as an asshole about it. YMMV, however. She just seems like the type of person I would not get along with at all.
Yes but, if anything, I'd see it as an IP statement. Regardless of those bits of Smilexian socionics, which I'm not sure I agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
That is more or less my take on it. I don't see a "case" for ILI; it's rather that it seems the second choice after ESI, imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
Actually I don't see that as a case for ILI, it's more about being Fi>Fe and with "a good dose of Se" as Gilly says. I think her stance is more IJ. As has been noted, she seems a bit bewildered when the guy gets into Ne. I think an ILI would be more likely to just think he was an idiot and be more or less indifferent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan
And that is where Socionics is "demonstrated" -- many people reacted as BulletsAndDoves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan
I had heard lots of negative stuff about that interview, some people even saying they were "shocked" or whatever -- I had the opposite reaction, I thought Parkinson was conducting the interview in such a way - like raising the "romance vs love issue" - that she'd have either to defend her point of view, or go for the "comedy interview" take or simply say that she didn't have a clue.
My thoughts were that she was trying to answer his questions honestly, a bit puzzled at the questions, clearly wishing she was elsewhere, but still holding on. I can't begin to understand why she'd be called "unfriendly" and "bitchy", and what she was supposed to have done to be more "friendly" -- laugh inanely at some points?
That difference in reactions is a clear example of Socionics working.
.
I think you can understand why she would be considered difficult to interview. An interview is public, and the point is to give answers about yourself, and to be receptive to the questions. She did seem to just not want to be there from the very first second. I think her visible reactions of contempt? at the questions crosses socionics more towards the end as it becomes clearer that they didn't feel comfortable towards each other. Having one's own opinion or holding one's own ground, not having an interest in clothing can be expressed in a more open way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
The interviewer was unprofessional. However I'm not sure what kind of show he has. If it's very goofy usually, then it would skew things more like Meg should have known what she was getting into and not done it if she didn't want to. I can see, especially at the end, his inappropriateness.
oh, as for her type, i reacted to her infexibility and bewilderment at possibilities, her view of art also seemed to be rather static and arbitrary, which suggests Se to me. I had associated her with a relationship with Russell Crowe who I saw typed as ESTp, and other socionics celebrity typing her as INTp, so I'd thought INTp before.
she seems much more uncomfortable in the first link, talking about In the Cut. this movie was pretty controversial taking a more female centered approach to sex/relationships. it seem like she feels pressure to defend almost a political position vis a vis that movie, which i have no doubt, she did in fact need to do.
there seems to be more of a generational misunderstanding going on when they are talking about the movie. he's from an older generation who i imagine has some difficulty or opinion about the movie. she'd younger and has a different point of view which is reinforced by the politics of her relationship with Campion.
when they start talkiing about her, she opens up beautifully and starts laughing and seems much more responsive. journalism? that seems sort of infp or enfp. given that she doesn't much like the spotlight and seeing the difficulty she has in being a strong advocate for her film, seems like infp to me.
i know, against the grain again, but that's what i think.
I don't think it means anything. Going for concrete examples, my (confirmed if anyone was) ISFj ex is a very successful journalist, as is Christopher Hitchens, who I can't see as anything but ISFj. So even if exceptions, there are already a few.Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond8
Moreover, when asked about journalism, she didn't want to go in detail about what she could have done in that area (sign of low Ne) and just said, nothing too big, like cooking. Unwillingness to discuss what one could have achieved professionally in alternate-reality scenarios --> sign of Ne PoLR, or at least low Ne.
journalism is just a part of the overall picture not the defining part. just a piece of the picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
i don't think very many people can discuss what would have happened in alternate life scenarios except for entp or enfp. so it may not necessarily be an Ne polr thing.
the point is that there was a huge difference in the way she came across when she was defending the movie, as opposed to when she was just discussing herself. she was much more relaxed in the second link.
she does seem introverted, though, and basically uncomfortable in the spotlight.
Sure, but at least of lowish Ne, as I also mentioned. I just think it makes ISFj>ENFp.Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond8
Meg Ryan looks a lot like Reese Witherspoon.
ISFj Fi............
MORALIST
Ethical subtype usually produces the impression of modest, delicate and soft person, but in the soul it is fundamental, exacting and distrustful. It it is difficult in by anything to reconvince. It can be obstinate and intractable. We wound, it is punctilious and does not love itself to tie. It is internally critical, it approaches all with the high moral measures, although not always this it voices. If we catch its principles, it unexpectedly can show nature, becoming sharp and obstinate. It is industrious and practical. It is thorough and tedious in the work. It demonstrates good manners, he tries to be graceful and elegant. It dresses with the taste, but are somewhat monotonous. View is soft, at times is fearful, which tests. In the contact with others - this is sincere, affable, thoughtful and courteous person.
ISFj-Fi , probably E6 So/sx.