lol, untypeable goddess
I think she is ESE-Si Sp/So 9w1
She has a lot of Alpha values
JK Rowling - INFJ - Dostoyevsky
Last edited by khcs; 05-26-2020 at 08:06 PM.
She idealizes Alpha values. Most of the Weasleys are Alpha, and the one who isn’t (Percy, who is Delta) isn’t represented great. Vernon and Aunt Marge are also ESTj and poorly represented. She also has three-four ILEs who are very well represented (Mr Weasley, Fred and George; Sirius and James are also most likely ILE/SLE and, although show as somewhat arrogant when they are younger, are portrayed positively). She also has Luna, who is LII and well represented, and Neville, who is SEI and well represented. Voldemort is Gamma NT, conflicting JK Rowling is she is an Alpha-SF. I also feel Lily, who is a huge beacon of how the main theme of love is expressed, is ESE. Furthermore, I don’t think JK Rowling is Ne-ego. I think she is Si-ego/Ne-seeking. I would have to go and find quotes/moments to back this up. I know there are a few moments she talks about aesthetics (in terms of clothing) and dressing well, and she seems very confident in making these observations.
Maybe she is EII, but to me she epitomizes Alpha more than Delta Quadra in terms of her values. I don’t think she is Ne-ego or intuitive at all. Her writing is fairly straight forward. Also, in terms of Fe-Ti, I remember one interview she gave where she expressed annoyance at Alfonzo putting in magic just to put in magic, saying that in her world there is always a logic underpinning the magic. She has made a few comments along these lines (her magic and world making sense logically), which seems more Ti-seeking than Ti-role.
I also find the way she writes about holidays, food, etc. to be very Si. Although there is a good chunk of Ne in HP (Quidditch (which she also noted she though of because every culture in history had had a sport, and therefore hers should too, which seems a Ti way of thinking), the bulk of her creativity surrounds Si-related things, notably food and the way she describes environments/decorations). Compare her writing to Neil Gaiman, who is EII and the Si>Ne becomes apparent.
Last edited by mightylizard; 08-30-2019 at 03:30 PM.
^I'd call her SEI from that picture above, and politically conservative.
I also tried to read her first Harry Potter book, and got to page 3 and gave up. Absolutely gave up. Her stuff is unreadable.
All over the place! EII looks most common and doesn't seem bad. Si polr seems off, with the level of immersion in her books.
I'll forever identify her books with spending time with my son <3 I tried reading the first one myself but couldn't get into it, but I found them enjoyable to read aloud to an interested party. He learned to read before the last in the series and impatiently finished it himself, aw
I agree with @mightylizard’s typing. She isn’t Fi/Te valuing. Certainly not an Fi dominant. Her writing isn’t emotionally introspective at all. Neither are her characters. Barely an attempt is made at it. Fi’s in the id-block.
lol at ENTJ. She is soft as shit and her Si is spilling out all over the place.
"And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it, and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them."
"And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it, and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them."
This shit is funny.
Self-typing is a joke if we can't actually agree on this woman being an EII.
im gonna go with IEI-Ni.
Harry Potter reeks of beta values. Gryffindor is basically beta.
Throw the ability to use "magic" into that mix and boy oh boy did you make the sale. Fuck em'! I'ma grok it innawoods! Later bitches !
I've never read much into her (tho I know the universe of HP) and I don't know her biography, but she reminds me of someone I type ESE-Si (most possibly - she is also a bit harder to type).
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
JK Rowling - INFJ - Dostoevsky
George R.R. Martin - INTJ - Robespierre
>She has terrible Fi and even worse Fe
Even if true, that doesn't indicate LIE at all, as LIE's Fe is usually better (role).
Any arguments for her being from a decisive quadra? I can't see anything for that.
I personally cringe from Fe doms often, so... This is entirely subjective. She doesn't seem strong at with her retcons, which LXEs are ignoring, but still pretty good at
I never got into her series much even tho its part of a genre I stereotypically enjoy. I find something about her really untrustworthy.... like how she outed Dumbledore as gay but then refuses to make him actually do anything gay in the books or movies, because that would be gay. It's like all she wanted was social justice brownie points but is secretly homophobic herself. She probably likes Gryffindor because bravery is something she wishes she had in herself but can never find. (I'm sorry if that sounds harsh but ugh, I just don't like her on a deep level) What she does with the SJW stuff is flat out manipulative and gross, and seems like something even Umbridge wouldn't do.
I kinda like it better when a redneck trailer trash guy says 'lol a fag' and treats me like crap because at least it's more honest than that manipulative BS.
It's not really about offending people or even provoking them, I mean a perfect example of how to be a cool person is Kylie Minogue. She feels like a better person, because her higher ups at first didn't want the gay stuff in her 'All the Lovers' video but she refused until they changed their minds. But I mean, that song technically has 'homosexuality' but it's tastefully done in a very generic vanilla-y way. She could have done something like that if she was worried what soccer mom Sally would think. As it would be a good compromise. I'm not saying I wanted Dumbledore and the other guy fisting each other on screen, but she doesn't even try. *sigh*
Idk her type tho. She kinda VIs as EII to me. That enlarged, very clear picture of her- her head shape is really Ij-ish?
Last edited by BandD; 05-30-2020 at 02:22 PM.
Novel wasn't about Dumbledore. Never understood why people were so upset that Dumbledore wasn't made clearly gay in the book when he is an old man who actually gets very little character insight until the last novel. I suppose she could have emphasized the relationship between him and that other wizard more, or people contemplating his sexuality in the final book, but I think that would have come across as more "social justice-y for the sake of social justice" than what she did in the end. Apparently she told producers/movie writers that Dumbledore was gay years before she told the public, so, meh. Even then I think what originally happened was someone asked if Dumbledore was ever married to a woman or something and she just said, "no, he's gay."
Once she dies it'll go back to, "Harry Potter had a fundamental impact on children's literature; J.K. Rowling was a creative genius whose imagination defined an entire generation." It's just "cool" to dislike her in the current zeitgeist. I mean, I don't care if people dislike her, but, like I said, once she dies she will be revered.
Her recent comments about gender are disappointing. I'm not sure she really said anything particularly transphobic, but she did seem a whole lot more interested in validating the idea that "sex is real," an idea that hardly needs defense since most people agree with it while the ones who don't aren't harming anyone, than she did in validating transgender people, who are often sorely in need of acceptance. The worst part of it is that if she really isn't transphobic and her comments were just clumsy, she has almost completely failed to explain the fact. I don't follow her Twitter page, but as far as I can tell, she has mostly responded to her fans' outrage with silence, which does as much to make her look transphobic as her original comments did.
Anyway, I think she is probably an EII. The little controversy I mentioned in the above paragraph seems to be a classic case of Fi > Fe. She's far more attentive to defending a personal conviction of hers than she is in considering how her comments are affecting other people and the general emotional atmosphere. And I think the Harry Potter books are very Ne. She cobbled together a great many external myths and put a wacky spin on them, and her presentation in the books has much more breadth than depth.
Type me here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...nnaire-(Nunki)
I have met Fe-egos doing things like that. It's related to their Ti-valuing (that means 'I like that system/logic and I follow it no matter what (sometimes to ie. hurting others IRL)'). I do think she values Fe, even when some of her opinions seem Fi-ish (like, Oprah sometimes selling 'delta' values thing while being EIE). There is a sense of 'normativeness' in it if it shows - it's not coming from ego, but from her views/opinions 'what should be' as a social norm (often given by the environment Fe is in - this hold specifically to XEIs, who also have demo Fi and HA Ti).
She also then sugar-coated it and was sugar-coating it before ('it was just an old lady blunder!' thing). She wants to voice (as she values that 'thinking' of TERFs) but she doesn't want to face the consequences until she is ready to do it, and then she will go all aboard with her 'like-minds'. Which makes me question ESE - she may be other Fe-ego instead.
Blunder could have been either Ti or Fi: it was "this is my opinion and I will hold stubbornly by it." To me it seemed more detached (Ti) rather than a personal conviction in the Fi sense. The main "issue" with the incident was that 1) she expressed her opinion very poorly, and 2) she didn't fully grasp how other people would perceive her opinion (slash she just blatantly didn't care).
Just read her full statement (on her website) about the incident. Seems very Ti > Fi (i.e., I am "expressive" in how I present my opinions, but "detached" in my analysis)
Edit: she is not delta, she is probably alpha SF, again.
Last edited by Duschia; 06-11-2020 at 12:30 AM.
EII seems perfect for her, I think.
I don't know what her explanation was and all the details of this but my impression of terf philosophy is encompassing of worries that like, sex-based discrimination will become legal if there is no sex. And I would think that it's in everybody's best interest to say that, for example, firing someone for getting pregnant should be frowned on regardless of the pregnant person's gender. My shallow impression (without a deep dive) of the jkr situation is that her stuff about women being the people who menstruate was for that reason and not some 2nd grade science thing, lol.
JK: will future generations get fired for being pregnant since their sex based protections are in danger if they can be arbitrary?
Option 1 response: your concern is relevant and let's work together to make bad things illegal irregardless of gender.
Option 2 response: YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THAT? DIE BITCH
If this post is evil I hope it's because of misunderstanding and not irreconcilable differences.
Well I think she should have apologized and not ranted so much about it as it seems like overly emotional. It was a bit too 'I'm sorry and I love trans people but'
I hate when people do that. Like 'I don't mean to hurt your feelings but-' (says something horribly offensive)
Just say the offensive thing or be nice but stop sugar coating the Mean Girl-ness in order to get away with it because you Machevillian-ishy know that people value niceness. It's very Umbridge of her. No wonder she wrote her so well eh?
I have lessened my own anger about it, I was tempted to call her names about it but it didn't seem helpful. As my SEE bestie would say 'JK Rowlings has feelings too' and well, that is true. Even if she is being a Condescending Corrorsive Cunt about this issue. Oh, oops. Heh.
I don't know why more people can't just simply say 'I'm sorry if I hurt anybody' and leave it at that. That short and sweet and simple. Even though technically yes that's probably just as 'manipulative' to me it makes her sound much better. If they don't forgive you after that it would seem like then they would be the grudge-holding assholes. In the end, the GLBT community should forgive her because this is so god awfully petty and we have much bigger enemies to worry about. She's spoiled and priveleged, and likes to troll ppl too much by her dumb eyes but in the end there is much bigger fish to fry.
I too used to think that trans people were possibly just gay males who couldn't withstand the social pressures of being a gay male so they had to be women instead.
But this doesn't make any sense, because I'm a gay cis male and never felt like I was in the wrong body so it's obviously different.
It might be true for a few trans people though but it doesn't seem very honest to apply that with a broad brush stroke.
I guess she should spend more time in the real world defending real minorities instead of sticking up for 'Werewolves' and Stoopid Magical Kreatures in her overrated book series?
I mean we're only so hard on her because she is trying to be some SJW for all discriminated against people. But maybe she should stick to fighting for cishet female rights.
There are parts of her book that felt so pretentious to me as well, like when she was describing the 'Mirror of Erised.' It's like her core is more pretentious even though she uses dumb cutsey phrases like that. The Fe is like a mask. And mainstream Illuminati schools probably liked it because of how pretentious it was, a good tool to control the masses while pretending that you are sticking up for the Magical Ones.
Last edited by BandD; 06-11-2020 at 04:19 PM.
I think the issue here not being talked about yet is much how British feminism is transphobic (especially that 'white, middle-class, middle-age' liberal brand of feminism, connoted to 2nd wave). Her views are not ones that magically appeared out of nowhere, she was sitting in a transphobic environment for a while. And she adopted its values - and apparently has gathered enough support/courage to voice it publicly.
Also she either posts no sources about her claims (on transgender people) or these 'sources' come from right-wing or TERF pamphlets (motivated by ideology).
What the fuck is TERF
It's just plain wrong to think non middle-class feminism is more real and thus more accepting and that women like JKR are just blind. At least with this issue and where I live.
Back in the day when I was part of an organization that dealt with prostitutes and prostituted women, the anti trans feeling was everywhere in there since poor prostitutes where chased away by bigger and stronger trans women from affluent zone with better customers and trans 'stars' that transitioned later in life would declare prostitution was harmless since they did it as a hobby and to fulfill their porn-induced fantasies.
All this backlash to JKR is rather closed-minded and backwards. Look, if you have to walk on eggshells around concepts like 'female nature' or 'gendered uprbringing', you might as well schedule an appointment for your anal-bleaching session and learn to look pretty and be looked at so that your looks match your colonized mindset.
Last edited by Rusal; 06-12-2020 at 02:00 AM.
People in minorities do need to be accepted in terms of equal and fair treatment, but they cannot demand emotional validation and other personal attitudes in public. They need to handle their own feelings like everyone else does it too.
It is completely crazy to me, the idea that I should keep paying attention to the feelings of people I don't even know up close personally. And that I should talk with consideration of their imaginary feelings.
Again, even if they were not imaginary, it is still not my business and not my problem as to what they are feeling. Just because trans people are in the minority, I don't need to handle their feelings with more care than other people's. If I knew a trans person personally then fine I'm glad to pay attention to their emotions if I'm on good enough and close enough terms with them, but if I don't even know them then no, it's not my responsibility or my business whatsoever.
They can just stop taking everything so personally, the ones that get upset over imagined slights.