Certainly an SEI may get into technical details and doesn't have to be joking all the time, but it's a perfectly reversible argument. Suppose a person you considered a Te-ego-block type were joking most of the time in an interview, but then for a moment started analyzing methods, techniques, and debate positions in a more typical Te way. In such a situation, you might say "would that person be unable to joke once in awhile? Or your image of Te types is that, even in an informal interview, they have to be serious, formal, and intellectual all the time?
The issue is that in the limited amount of material we have, we need to form a perception of the way the person prefers to be most of the time, vs. how that person may act in certain situations. I'm not fully convinced that he isn't SEI, but it seemed to me that from the footage I saw, he seemed most comfortable with the "shop talk" and then for a brief moment went into a more relaxed, informal mode.
Because he associates the psychological, interpersonal dimensions with a greater level of abstraction; this seems to pair F with N. He was apparently particularly drawn to exploring psychological problems...suspicion, neurosis, madness, etc. I'm not saying that an Alpha couldn't be interested in those things....it's just that this is a focus I've seen from NF types more than NT. So taking the hypothesis that he's SLI, it would fit in terms of dual-block values.Why should it be a sign of Delta over Alpha? How would you argue it?
To me, his movies don't seem as fragmentary as that approach might suggest. There tends to be a very coherent thread, often involving a character asking pretty intelligent questions and figuring out something step by step. Also, a lot of the "fun" of his movies comes from the very bold, strategic use of various dramatic devices; it's hard to describe this, but basically he lets you "see" his methods for achieving his effects. I don't have time to explain this fully right now, but this is what I mean by possibly "a Te approach to Fe"No. I totally disagree with you there. What he actually said, very clearly, is that he does not care about the details of the plot, as to why something happens or not. He just said he didn't care about that; he cared about the emotional response of the audience. That was the "technique" he was talking about. He saw his movies as a collection of images aiming at creating specific emotional responses, on a moment-by-moment basis, without caring about whether the plot, the content.