Watchmen

[Ezra]

Then let me turn the questions on you then. Why ILI? Where is his leading- and creative-? Where are his Gamma values? Where is his -seeking? Where is his -seeking? Where is the -role function? Where is the -PoLR? What interactions with the characters justifies an ILI typing?

He is expressionless - I think we both agree on this. Not only this, but whenever Silk Spectre tries some Fe shit with him, he is totally blank. I see these as a Fe PoLR traits. As for anything sensing, I see him as devoid of that.

At the same time, I could ask you the same phrased questions. Where is his leading- and creative-? Where are his Alpha values? Where is his -seeking? Where is his -seeking? Where is the -role function? Where is the -PoLR?

vs. :
- Janet Slater: "I remember soon after he failed to prevent J.F.K.'s assassination, we argued. I said, 'Jon, you know how every damn thing in this world fits together except people!"' This is clearly dealing primarily with the fields of external objects (i.e. Ti).

All this really explains is that he is proficient in intuition and thinking. It doesn't really express any functional preference.

vs. : I admit that Dr. Manhattan has strong Ni, but it is clearly not leading-Ni, which is a rather tempting assumption given how the quantum nature of his powers are tied in with time. Jon's ability to live in different moments of time presents a far more static than dynamic view. He views them as moments in time. They are like photographic snapshots, much like the one that he contemplates on of him with Janet Slater. His reflections are non-linear snapshots.

See, I saw that time aspect as being totally Ni, especially Gamma NT! I'm interested that we differ here.

vs. : Jon is actually quite conscious of his Fi, but at the same time, he is not aware of it, much in the manner of an Fi-role function.
- Jon on fighting-crime (picture of him exploding someone's head): "The morality of my activity escapes me."

...

This just makes no sense to me. I don't see how you couldn't - again - substitute Fi for Si.

- Jon decides to fix Janet Slater's watch. Jon buys her earrings that look like Dr. Manhattan's symbol. (Wikisocion: "Alphas show affection for others in the form of small practical services or gifts.")

I wasn't aware that ILIs couldn't buy gifts.

vs. : Where is his concern or desire for Se? I struggle to find it anywhere. Si, however? All over the place. In fact, he does not even seem to care for Se. This is where the Comedian (SLE) comes in as his supervisor.
- Jon reflects on Vietnam: "[The Comedian] suits the climate here: the madness, the pointless butchery, as I come to understand Vietnam and what it implies about the human condition, I also realize that few humans will permit themselves such an understanding. Blake's different. He understands perfectly and he doesn't care." This is what I mean by Jon looking up to Eddie. Jon is simultaneously criticizing the Se that is in play, but he is acknowledges that Eddie is one of the few who does "get it". The language here of "the human condition" is also one of Ti > Te.
- Eddie kills a pregnant woman against Jon's wishes, and here is Eddie's response back: "You watched me. You coulda changed the gun into steam or the bullets into mercury or the bottle into snowflakes! You coulda teleported either of us to goddamn Australia...but you didn't lift a finger!" This points to not only weak-Se, but also a Se-PoLR.
- Jon Osterman talking to Janet Slater about being a research scientist: "Well, you know...my dad sort of pushed me into it. That happens to me a lot. Other people seem to make all my moves for me." Weak-Se. Janet's response: "Can I get you a drink?" Arguable caregiver behavior, to which Jon does respond favorably.

All of this is basically either very slim evidence or could easily back up an ILI typing.

To cut the previously mentioned bit with Laurie (SS2) when talking about her relationship with Jon: "I'm kept around is to keep Jon relaxed." Si. When Jon is walking around Mars, he is focusing on the beauty of his surroundings and being in that moment. Si. In fact, Jon is even "playing" or sifting pink Martian sand in his hands. He takes conscious time to look at the stars and a meteor shower. These are Si-pursuits.
- "[Janet Slater] buys me a beer, the first time a woman has ever done this for me. As she passes me the cold, perspiring glass, our fingers touch." Yep, he is loving the Si.

...................................... (-_-)

[Logos]

He is expressionless - I think we both agree on this. Not only this, but whenever Silk Spectre tries some Fe shit with him, he is totally blank. I see these as a Fe PoLR traits. As for anything sensing, I see him as devoid of that.

Actually, when Silk Spectre's Fe-shit goes up in anger when Rorschach is around, Dr. Manhattan grows angry at Rorscharch because of the negative Fe and Si that he is causing.

At the same time, I could ask you the same phrased questions. Where is his leading- and creative-? Where are his Alpha values? Where is his -seeking? Where is his -seeking? Where is the -role function? Where is the -PoLR?

So you ask me the questions, I reverse them, and now you are asking them back? What purpose does this rhetorical toying serve? The answers have been provided.

All this really explains is that he is proficient in intuition and thinking. It doesn't really express any functional preference.

I told you that I did not get around to finishing this before I had to go. Since Gilly seemed to get the point that Jon is LII before I finished, I did not think I would need to bring out the dead horse for further beating.

See, I saw that time aspect as being totally Ni, especially Gamma NT! I'm interested that we differ here.

Nope. Static Ne snapshots. Also check out what he does with his powers while sleeping with Laurie (with playful infantile erotic behavior might I add): Ne-brand multitasking!

This just makes no sense to me. I don't see how you couldn't - again - substitute Fi for Si.

Substitute Fi for Si? Now what are you talking about?

I wasn't aware that ILIs couldn't buy gifts.

You are obviously not aware of alot of things, but I won't hold that against you. Pieces upon pieces of evidence that points to Alpha and LII. Yes ILIs can buy gifts, but what we are seeing in Dr. Manhattan in conjunction with other pieces of LII-qualities is pointing to more typical Alpha forms of affection.

All of this is basically either very slim evidence or could easily back up an ILI typing.

Then put your money where your mouth is and do so. Prove the ILI typing. Tell me how that can be used to prove the ILI typing.

...................................... (-_-)

Are these or are these not Si-seeking qualities?

[Gilly]

While I do think that Manhattan is LII, I have to say, Logos, a lot of your "concrete" reasons for your LII typing of Manhattan are kind of crappy.

These are the things that got me thinking:

-IJ temperament/Ti dominant
-Infantile needing a Caregiver

He also seems to have more of a typical Ti-IJ approach to social situations, especially at the press conference; he is not unintentionally gruff or unrestrained like an Fe PoLR type might be, but rather very restrained,polite, etc.

I still think there are reasons to think ILI, such as his lack of responsiveness to Fe and his admiration of the Comedian, but on the whole I am leaning LII for now.

[Logos]

While I do think that Manhattan is LII, I have to say, Logos, a lot of your "concrete" reasons for your LII typing of Manhattan are kind of crappy.

Like what?

I still think there are reasons to think ILI, such as his lack of responsiveness to Fe and his admiration of the Comedian, but on the whole I am leaning LII for now.

Lack of responsiveness to Fe? Are we reading the same graphic novel? What do you want him to do? A song and dance number every time a little Fe comes his way? I have repeatedly explained why you are reading the admiration of the Comedian incorrectly.


I repeat myself then to Gilly and Ezra: Why ILI? Where is his leading- and creative-? Where are his Gamma values? Where is his -seeking? Where is his -seeking? Where is the -role function? Where is the -PoLR? What interactions with the characters justifies an ILI typing?

[Smilingeyes]

Fucking EPIC movie. Just plain awesome. IMO everyone should see it.

Dr. Manhattan: ILI-Ni 5w4 sx/sp
Silk Spectre II - SEE-Fi 7w6 sx/so
Silk Spectre I - EIE-Fe 3w2 so/sx
The Comedian - SLE-Se cp 6w7 so/sp
Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias - EIE-Ni 3w4 sp/so
Rorschach - ESI-Se cp 6w5 sp/sx
Nite Owl II - LIE-Te phobic 6w5 sp/sx

Saw it quite recently.

My opinions:
Dr Manhattan: INTj
Silk Spectre II: ISFp-Si
Silk Spectre I: INFj-Ne
The Comedian: ESTp
Rorschach: ISFj-Se
Nite Owl II: ENFP-Fi
Ozymandias: ESTj-Si

....

Now I know that that last one is going to raise a few eyebrows. I feel that I have to explain that opinion... and to also mention that this is the movie version that I'm talking about.

Ozymandias describes his actions as an elaborate practical joke. He does what he does because he is capable, on a personal level of manipulating events into a ridiculous extent and he wants to create a masterpiece for himself. I don't see anything mystical or metaphysical, no appreciation of the nature of odds, no appreciation for chaos or the deeper meaning of suffering. He is outwardly vain, he shows no feeling, he is masterfully calculating instead of fatalistic. I don't see anything in him that makes it look like he had any idea of the larger implications of what he's doing. Anyway, I really like the character, but I think he isn't a visionary, I think he's an engineer in a grand-scale. But of course the character is fictional, so please disregard everything I just said. Thank you.

[Gilly]

Like what?

Ezra has already pointed it out; I see your rationalizations, but stuff like the gifts...come on man, that's the definition of minutia.

Lack of responsiveness to Fe? Are we reading the same graphic novel? What do you want him to do? A song and dance number every time a little Fe comes his way? I have repeatedly explained why you are reading the admiration of the Comedian incorrectly.

Well, for one I haven't read the graphic novel; only seen the movie. For two, he doesn't exactly respond to SS2 when she flairs up and leaves him, nor does he respond to her Fe when they are on Mars; granted, he eventually sees reason and comes back, but it's because he is interested in humanity, not because of her plight or anything she says.

I don't see how my interpretation of his admiration of the Comedian is in any way off. You're going to have to be more specific, I guess.

[Logos]

Ezra has already pointed it out; I see your rationalizations, but stuff like the gifts...come on man, that's the definition of minutia.

You call it minutia, I call it evidence. You work off of vague general impressions, while I work off of textual support. The gifts were more of an aside that was a small piece of evidence that could be shown to support Alpha values than a serious point in favor.

For two, he doesn't exactly respond to SS2 when she flairs up and leaves him, nor does he respond to her Fe when they are on Mars; granted, he eventually sees reason and comes back, but it's because he is interested in humanity, not because of her plight or anything she says.

And how would you expect an LII to respond? Just because an ESE or EIE or Fe-ego yells at an LII or LSI, it does not mean that they are going to respond with full expressions on their face or emotional outbursts of their own. But it is still through Fe that they are able to gauge a situation since they are unable to comrotably read a person's emotional connections or states naturally on their own. You may view him as a blackhole for Fe, but it is to Fe that he is able to get a sense for what they are feeling and thinking. Fe-seeking does not always mean to be an attention whore or wanting non-stop Fe love and affection, but it also just means using emotional openness to be able to read people.

I don't see how my interpretation of his admiration of the Comedian is in any way off. You're going to have to be more specific, I guess.

Because Dr. Manhattan despises the he sees in Vietnam and the Comedian, but what he values or admires is his understanding (). The admiration from Dr. Manhattan to the Comedian is via and not through a shared appreciation or want for , which an ILI would have with him.

[Gilly]

Because Dr. Manhattan despises the he sees in Vietnam and the Comedian, but what he values or admires is his understanding (). The admiration from Dr. Manhattan to the Comedian is via and not through a shared appreciation or want for , which an ILI would have with him.

So he is Ti without Se because he disagrees with war but thinks that the Comedian understands life? That's pretty weak.

[Gilly]

You call it minutia, I call it evidence. You work off of vague general impressions, while I work off of textual support. The gifts were more of an aside that was a small piece of evidence that could be shown to support Alpha values than a serious point in favor.

I don't work solely off of impressions, but I do place some emphasis on them, whereas people like you seem to completely neglect their importance and rely on wishy washy attribution of random pieces of evidence, hoping that they can sort the wheat from the chaff while neglecting the vast majority of information available.

And how would you expect an LII to respond? Just because an ESE or EIE or Fe-ego yells at an LII or LSI, it does not mean that they are going to respond with full expressions on their face or emotional outbursts of their own. But it is still through Fe that they are able to gauge a situation since they are unable to comrotably read a person's emotional connections or states naturally on their own. You may view him as a blackhole for Fe, but it is to Fe that he is able to get a sense for what they are feeling and thinking. Fe-seeking does not always mean to be an attention whore or wanting non-stop Fe love and affection, but it also just means using emotional openness to be able to read people.

Ok. How does this apply to Manhattan?

[Logos]

So he is Ti without Se because he disagrees with war but thinks that the Comedian understands life? That's pretty weak.

Your contortion of my argument fails. He values Ti, has weak Se, and criticizes the use of Se (not just war). He admires the upfrontness of the Comedian and his understanding of life. This is closer to LII-SLE supervision and not ILI-SLE semi-duality. Your Te-PoLR is shining through. I wonder what you expect Dr. Manhattan to say to prove this relationship: "Oh thank you Comedian for supervising me!" I'm not sure even then if that would get through to you and your selective reasoning skills.

I don't work solely off of impressions, but I do place some emphasis on them, whereas people like you seem to completely neglect their importance and rely on wishy washy attribution of random pieces of evidence, hoping that they can sort the wheat from the chaff while neglecting the vast majority of information available.

I have the impression that he is an LII, but I also have evidence that he is more likely an LII than an ILI. So there. I am curious though as to what you consider strong evidence since neither you nor Ezra have thus far supplied none.

Ok. How does this apply to Manhattan?

Answer my question: How would you expect an LII to respond to the Fe that you saw thrown his way?

I will continually throw this out to you and Ezra until I actually get a reply: Why ILI? Where is his leading- and creative-? Where are his Gamma values? Where is his -seeking? Where is his -seeking? Where is the -role function? Where is the -PoLR? What interactions with the characters justifies an ILI typing?

If all you have is what you think is an -PoLR and a superficial look at his abilities and say "Oooo...time, that's " than your arguments are nothing but vapor, hot air, emptiness, and jack shit.

[Gilly]

Your contortion of my argument fails. He values Ti, has weak Se, and criticizes the use of Se (not just war). He admires the upfrontness of the Comedian and his understanding of life. This is closer to LII-SLE supervision and not ILI-SLE semi-duality. Your Te-PoLR is shining through. I wonder what you expect Dr. Manhattan to say to prove this relationship: "Oh thank you Comedian for supervising me!" I'm not sure even then if that would get through to you and your selective reasoning skills.

I don't see how this points to supervision any more than it does semi-duality.

I have the impression that he is an LII, but I also have evidence that he is more likely an LII than an ILI. So there. I am curious though as to what you consider strong evidence since neither you nor Ezra have thus far supplied none.

He's a fictional character, and a highly amorphous one at that; "strong evidence" hardly exists.

Answer my question: How would you expect an LII to respond to the Fe that you saw thrown his way?

I would expect the LII to question his own judgment because of the reactions people are having to his behavior.

I will continually throw this out to you and Ezra until I actually get a reply: Why ILI?

Where are his Gamma values?

Xenophobia; wanting the "outside world" to leave him to his work. Also, see Fi seeking.

Where is his -seeking?

He has a set vision of how he would like things to turn out, and he needs someone to figuratively shake him so that he will see that his little plan isn't taking everything into account, that he needs to come to grips with the reality of the forces that are at play, and that the things at stake are more important than his personal vision.

Where is his -seeking?

Isolating himself, desiring to be left alone, and wanting only the company of a significant other to keep him "attached" to the rest of the world.

Where is the -role function?

Neglecting to pay any real attention to SS; thinking that simply giving her pleasure will substitute for actually being with her and giving her his sole focus.

Where is the -PoLR?

All over the place.

What interactions with the characters justifies an ILI typing?

I would say that the interaction with the Comedian, and his respect for him, is, while inconclusive, not so whimsically dismissable, as you seem to think, as an Ni type having admiration for an Se type.

If all you have is what you think is an -PoLR and a superficial look at his abilities and say "Oooo...time, that's " than your arguments are nothing but vapor, hot air, emptiness, and jack shit.

Relax man. You're getting your hackles up about typing fictional characters. I'm just trying to provoke some discussion; try not to take it too seriously.

[Gilly]

Also keep in mind that I actually agree with you At this point I'm just playing devil's advocate.

[Logos]

I don't see how this points to supervision any more than it does semi-duality.

Why not?

He's a fictional character, and a highly amorphous one at that; "strong evidence" hardly exists.

Strong evidence is quite apparent when looking at the makeup of his character.

I would expect the LII to question his own judgment because of the reactions people are having to his behavior.

To an extent he does. His natural inclination to angered displays of is to talk it out. He also wants to understand her argument and line of reasoning.

Xenophobia; wanting the "outside world" to leave him to his work. Also, see Fi seeking.

That is not xenophobia, nor does he really exhibit this sort of behavior.

He has a set vision of how he would like things to turn out, and he needs someone to figuratively shake him so that he will see that his little plan isn't taking everything into account, that he needs to come to grips with the reality of the forces that are at play, and that the things at stake are more important than his personal vision.

Point to the proof of these things in the story.

Isolating himself, desiring to be left alone, and wanting only the company of a significant other to keep him "attached" to the rest of the world.

Who is isolating him? He is the government's tool. He does press conferences all the time. He is with others all the time too.

Neglecting to pay any real attention to SS; thinking that simply giving her pleasure will substitute for actually being with her and giving her his sole focus.

Weak.

All over the place.

Weak. Need evidence.

I would say that the interaction with the Comedian, and his respect for him, is, while inconclusive, not so whimsically dismissable, as you seem to think, as an Ni type having admiration for an Se type.

No, and I've explained why. This is not Ni -> Se admiration.

[Gilly]

Why not?

The burden of proof is on you to say how it does. I don't think there's really significant evidence of either supervision or semi-duality; just some shared value.

Strong evidence is quite apparent when looking at the makeup of his character.

Not touching this.

To an extent he does. His natural inclination to angered displays of is to talk it out. He also wants to understand her argument and line of reasoning.

Fair.

That is not xenophobia, nor does he really exhibit this sort of behavior.

"I said LEAVE ME ALONE!"

Doesn't want people meddling in his personal life? Wants to be left alone? Sounds like a typical Gamma to me.

Point to the proof of these things in the story.

I kind of think it's self-evident...he has a plan: to help prevent war with free energy. But he fails to see that larger things are at work, that his vision is not enough, and that providing a rational long-term solution (Te+Ni) is not enough to overcome the inherent structure of the human psyche and its manifestation on a large scale (unaware of Ti + Se).

Who is isolating him? He is the government's tool. He does press conferences all the time. He is with others all the time too.

He openly acknowledges that SS2 is his only connection to humanity; if he's with others "all the time," it's not by choice or preference, but rather necessity.

Weak.

No weaker than your argument for Fi role.

Weak. Need evidence.

Lack of emotional connection with others. Only emotional connection to humanity is in one-on-one relationships; no natural empathy, except for people he has relationships with - Fi>Fe.

No, and I've explained why. This is not Ni -> Se admiration.

I'm perfectly open to this, providing you give an argument. You don't have to lay it all out again; re-quote your strong points if you think you have made this clear already.

I just got back from seeing the movie a second time, and I do think Manhattan is LII; just not for the reasons you state, and I think that a case for ILI could be made. However I do think that the character would be portrayed differently if Gamma values were more pervasive, and overall, LII makes the most sense.

[The Greeter]

"I said LEAVE ME ALONE!"

Doesn't want people meddling in his personal life? Wants to be left alone? Sounds like a typical Gamma to me.

Just to nitpick, but when people are accusing you of causing the deaths of everyone you have been associated with, those that you loved and possibly those that you currently do, in a manner that the audience did to Dr. Manhattan, you wouldn't say "Leave me alone" but "I think I should evaluate everything you're saying because I happen to value Fe?" for him to be a Fe-seeker? I think his response is relatable to anyone.

He openly acknowledges that SS2 is his only connection to humanity; if he's with others "all the time," it's not by choice or preference, but rather necessity.

When SS2 tried to appeal to him through Fi-means, Then do it for me he remains untouched. I think this discounts Dr. Manhattan as valuing Fi. It was only through the appreciation of humanity, its general behaviour and its unprobable existence, despite how utterly meaningless it was in the grand scheme of things, that he decided to try and save the world. I would consider this more of an Ti-Ne-Fe view than an Te-Ni-Fi one, though not entirely exclusive to it.

[Logos]

The burden of proof is on you to say how it does. I don't think there's really significant evidence of either supervision or semi-duality; just some shared value.

That was one part of the supervision, the other and more pressing act is when the Comedian kills the pregnant woman and calls Dr. Manhattan out for his Se-PoLR.

"I said LEAVE ME ALONE!"

Doesn't want people meddling in his personal life? Wants to be left alone? Sounds like a typical Gamma to me.

And you call my evidence weak? He had an emotional outburst? How is that xenophobia? I'm not sure how this points to ILI > LII unless you somehow think that LIIs want people meddling in their life, love to be around strangers, and nosey reporters.

I kind of think it's self-evident...he has a plan: to help prevent war with free energy. But he fails to see that larger things are at work, that his vision is not enough, and that providing a rational long-term solution (Te+Ni) is not enough to overcome the inherent structure of the human psyche and its manifestation on a large scale (unaware of Ti + Se).

What are you talking about? This is incorrect through and through in terms of the plot, the character, the information elements, and written with a Beta assumption of what constitutes a large scale. Is the bold part of the movie adaptation, because I do not recall that in the book.

He openly acknowledges that SS2 is his only connection to humanity; if he's with others "all the time," it's not by choice or preference, but rather necessity.

Actually I was referring to his living in what for us appear as different times, when he perceives it as a single static time.

No weaker than your argument for Fi role.

I agree, but I also did not give as thorough of an explanation on all of the functions as I had planned on doing, so I did bits and pieces of them.

Lack of emotional connection with others. Only emotional connection to humanity is in one-on-one relationships; no natural empathy, except for people he has relationships with - Fi>Fe.

I'm not sure how this points to Fi>Fe. An LII does not exactly have natural empathy either, but it manifests mainly as an Fi role (see his meeting with JFK and the news cast).

I'm perfectly open to this, providing you give an argument. You don't have to lay it all out again; re-quote your strong points if you think you have made this clear already.

I do.

I just got back from seeing the movie a second time, and I do think Manhattan is LII; just not for the reasons you state, and I think that a case for ILI could be made. However I do think that the character would be portrayed differently if Gamma values were more pervasive, and overall, LII makes the most sense.

But they already are! Alan Moore is an ILI with a number of Gamma characters, but Dr. Manhattan is his writing of an Alpha NT-style character. Movies are nice and all for arguments, but the graphic novel makes for much better argument.

[Gilly]

Maybe we are running into so many problems because you have only read the comic, and I have only seen the movie.

[Jarno]

I saw the movie today.

dr Manhatten is most likely ILI, although I can see why people think he's LII.
Sally, the mother of miss jupiter, VI's as an SEE-Fi subtype.

[Banana Pancakes]

I saw the movie today.

dr Manhatten is most likely ILI, although I can see why people think he's LII.
Sally, the mother of miss jupiter, VI's as an SEE-Fi subtype.

I watched it again today and can see ILI as well now. While miss jupiter might VI as SEE, she acts EIE and behaves like a victim with Comedian.

[Logos]

Except that Dr. Manhattan is an LII. That is all.

[Jarno]

Except that Dr. Manhattan is an LII. That is all.

yeah, I can understand this completely.

It's just if you look at the role he plays, it's a mixture between a predictor, seer, visionair, but also a scientist, IJ temperament.

He certainly isn't an ILI-Ni subtype. But he's also not the stereotypical LII, at least, it's not what they try to show.

[Jarno]

I watched it again today and can see ILI as well now. While miss jupiter might VI as SEE, she acts EIE and behaves like a victim with Comedian.

Yes, she's probably SEE in real life, and plays the role of an EIE

[Gilly]

yeah, I can understand this completely.

It's just if you look at the role he plays, it's a mixture between a predictor, seer, visionair, but also a scientist, IJ temperament.

He certainly isn't an ILI-Ni subtype. But he's also not the stereotypical LII, at least, it's not what they try to show.

Well his archetypal role is more Ni-based, but if you look at the actual behavior of the character, LII fits better.

Look what finally convinces him to come back to earth: SS2 doesn't push him to do it, or throw a fit, or try to force him into doing something; she knows that would only make him disengage further. She arouses interest and empathy, both in a more Fe than Fi manner; it's not because of her, or her connections, or even his connection to her, but finally because it is interesting and stimulating to him to observe humanity. Fe-seeking>Se-seeking.

[Jarno]

Well his archetypal role is more Ni-based, but if you look at the actual behavior of the character, LII fits better.

Yes, that's exactly what it is.

[Logos]

Funny thing is, although Dr. Manhattan's quantum abilities would normally be associated with an -process driven function, Expat actually called Dr. Manhattan something along the lines of being "the ultimate Static" since it is like he lives through the entirety of what everyone perceives as as instead.

[Gilly]

Funny thing is, although Dr. Manhattan's quantum abilities would normally be associated with an -process driven function, Expat actually called Dr. Manhattan something along the lines of being "the ultimate Static" since it is like he lives through the entirety of what everyone perceives as as instead.

Interesting. Again, that's the kind of "archetypal" evidence that can sort of confuse things, but I see what you are saying.

[Logos]

Coincidentally found this thread, and just felt like asking what you all saw in that film? Damn what a waste of time! So long. No story. No meaning. No reason. Soooo extremely booooooring.

I never saw the movie. I read the graphic novel, which was a thought-provoking read.

[717495]

At times, it's hard to say if Rorshack is or ego, ASIDE from the fact that he's clearly valuing over valuing. But those other times its easier to tell he is with a role.

Anyway I could care less how you spell his name. That's what it sounds like, ror - shack. Live with it people.

Manhatten is definitely an LII.

The rest, I could care less about too. Maybe I should care? I don't know.

[717495]

I never saw the movie. I read the graphic novel, which was a thought-provoking read.

Oh yeah. I have that. I still need to finish. My brother is always trying to get me to read his books, even though I must meditate on my thoughts most of the time. So reading gets to be a chore.

[Bardia]

Coincidentally found this thread, and just felt like asking what you all saw in that film? Damn what a waste of time! So long. No story. No meaning. No reason. Soooo extremely booooooring.

It wasn't as good as I expected it to be but it was still okay. It had mystery by making me wonder what was going on and who was behind it. It had some okay fight scenes. The best part to me was the questionable moral actions in the movie. I like it when movies make me think and sometimes the best way to do that is by posing a question or morality. Was it okay for Dr. Manhattan to kill Rorschach at the end? Was Ozymandias right in sacrificing some people for the greater good? I guess I just like to think through those things.

[Gilly]

Coincidentally found this thread, and just felt like asking what you all saw in that film? Damn what a waste of time! So long. No story. No meaning. No reason. Soooo extremely booooooring.

Seriously?! I thought it was really well done; not what I would call...philosophically substantial, like it tries to be, but it was a good film nonetheless. I loved the Comedian; he was by far my favorite Watchman. Some of my friends say that I'm like Dr. Manhattan, which is really strange to me; I mean, I am very intellectual, I'm in a bit of an ascetic phase in my life, and the people who say that do kind of look up to me in a "whoa you really understand life" kind of way, so I guess it's understandable, but I couldn't really see myself in that position; I'm way too fucking unhinged to ever be like him I think if any of them actually reminds me of myself or does things that I would do in their shoes, it would be Ozymandias: I definitely have his moral flexibility when it comes to achieving goals, but I'd also be the one to not let myself kill millions of people unless I completely empathized with their plight

But yeah, I thought it was a fun movie.

[Gilly]

Yeah, I definitely agree that the characters were pretty empty for the most part. Like, even though they squeezed in back stories, they never really felt totally "human." But I guess that's what happens when you make a movie out of a comic book *shrug*

[Rocket]

I'll have to side with INTJ for Dr Manhattan .... his main intention was to understand blocked with . In this context -PoLR means little in that with all his powers he had nothing to fear. If anything -PoLR was evidenced by restraint more than anything else.

In the movie the Comedian struck me as ESFP. There were lots of moments where he showed high levels of -awareness. For instance when he criticised Dr Manhattan for not preventing him from killing his mistress.

[Gilly]

For instance when he criticised Dr Manhattan for not preventing him from killing his mistress.

That was more Se+Ti than Fi; he wasn't actually trying to say that Manhattan should have stopped him, but rather that Manhattan was a hypocrite for saying that the Comedian was wrong to do such a thing while failing to stop him despite having more than adequate power to do so.

[Rocket]

That was more Se+Ti than Fi; he wasn't actually trying to say that Manhattan should have stopped him, but rather that Manhattan was a hypocrite for saying that the Comedian was wrong to do such a thing while failing to stop him despite having more than adequate power to do so.

Obviously there are multiple levels of meaning in the event. There were three characters involved, but the real power play was between Comedian and Dr Manhattan.

Comedian appeared to act on impulse (but this was not true entirely) as at some level he expected to be restrained. If Dr Manhattan had acted to restrain him then in a very real sense his actions would have been controlled by Comedian - something he could not allow.

The fact that Dr Manhattan didn't partake in the "powerplay" effectively forced Comedian to console himself with cynicism ... in a way attempting to draw Dr Manhattan into shared responsibility.

Comedian was in fact saying Dr Manhattan should have stopped him for the sake of decency .... but Dr Manhattan was evolving beyond the point where he could be trifled with in this way.

[Krig the Viking]

I finally saw the movie the other day. I'd read the graphic novel before, but hadn't seen the movie.

My impressions, based on the comic book and the movie (the director stayed close enough to the book that the characters all seem to have the same types in both mediums, which is a rare thing in movies! )

Nite Owl II: When I first read the book, I thought Nite Owl and Silk Spectre seemed like a classic case of LII-ESE duality. This was what I was most worried about the movie screwing up, since directors often cast actors who have the wrong type, resulting in poor chemistry in the romantic subplots. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the LII-ESE chemistry had survived intact into the movie. Dreiberg's hesitant mannerisms, his nervousness around Laurie, who he has clearly had a crush on for some time, and a bunch of other things make LII pretty clear to me.

Hollis Mason, on the other hand, I could totally see as LSE.

Silk Spectre II: See above. She's not the stereotypical bubbly airhead that many people think of when they think ESE, so I think that might be throwing some people off. However, if you look at her scenes with Nite Owl, she displays more of a typical ESE demeanour there.

Ozymandias: LIE. I can see why some say EIE, and that would be my second choice, but I think the scenes where he comes off as most EIE are the ones where he's in his "public persona", being all charming and such. In private however, he seems more serious and less charismatic, and his motivations and thought process seem more Te than Fe to me. That said, Ozymandias is the typing I'm least sure of.

Rorschach: LSI. He has an unshakable Ti system of morality, and defends it to the death (literally) with Se. An ESI, in my opinion, would be less concerned with objective morality (Ti), and more concerned with interpersonal relationships (Fi).

The Comedian: I agree with most people here, he seems like a clear-cut case of SLE.

Dr. Manhattan: LII. I initially would have thought ILI, but if Silk Spectre is really ESE as I believe, then their close relationship wouldn't have made sense, being conflictors. While it did fall apart in the end, it seemed like there was a genuinely close connection there at one point. I wasn't sure, but Logos' reasoning and especially The Greeter's analysis of why Dr. Manhattan finally decided to try to save the world tipped me over the edge. However, a good deal of his behaviour *is* reminiscent of ILI, which actually makes sense in the story, as that's what finally drove Silk Spectre away. He was LII, but his behaviour shifted (due to his powers) and more and more began to resemble ILI behaviour, creating a pseudo-Conflict relationship between him and Laurie.

[Gilly]

Ozymandias: LIE. I can see why some say EIE, and that would be my second choice, but I think the scenes where he comes off as most EIE are the ones where he's in his "public persona", being all charming and such. In private however, he seems more serious and less charismatic, and his motivations and thought process seem more Te than Fe to me. That said, Ozymandias is the typing I'm least sure of.

Do you know any EIEs on a more personal level? Forget your impressions of what you've seen; have you ever known one really well?

I remember something Expat posted a while back about Bill Clinton, who is most likely EIE, talking abut how he is very charismatic in public, very charming, etc etc, but when it's just him and his wife, or him and a few other people, you see an entirely different side of him: more direct, less animated, etc. I think this is a pretty hallmark EIE trait.

Also, the idea that he "took the time" to empathize with every person he intended to kill, watch them, know their lives and see how they exist in order to ensure that what he was doing was the right thing, is more something an EIE would do, IMO; an LIE would see that as basically unnecessary, that it's the right thing to do if it's the right thing to do, and how you feel about it isn't really relevant.

Rorschach

: LSI. He has an unshakable Ti system of morality, and defends it to the death (literally) with Se. An ESI, in my opinion, would be less concerned with objective morality (Ti), and more concerned with interpersonal relationships (Fi).

I agree, it's not an easy choice between LSI and ESI for Rorschach. I'm tempted to lean LSI, but I'd hesitate to take a really solid stance on that.

He's definitely a 6w5 though.

[Logos]

Do you know any EIEs on a more personal level? Forget your impressions of what you've seen; have you ever known one really well?

Yes. Quite a bit actually.

I remember something Expat posted a while back about Bill Clinton, who is most likely EIE, talking abut how he is very charismatic in public, very charming, etc etc, but when it's just him and his wife, or him and a few other people, you see an entirely different side of him: more direct, less animated, etc. I think this is a pretty hallmark EIE trait.

I could see that, but LIE with an Fe-Role fits better with what we see with Ozymandias. Do you think that Ozymandias is merry?

Also, the idea that he "took the time" to empathize with every person he intended to kill, watch them, know their lives and see how they exist in order to ensure that what he was doing was the right thing, is more something an EIE would do, IMO; an LIE would see that as basically unnecessary, that it's the right thing to do if it's the right thing to do, and how you feel about it isn't really relevant.

Why are you putting "took the time" in quotations marks? Anyway, he took time to know them and study their behavior, but not to empathize with them. Why would an LIE have difficulty to do this, especially one that lacks the uncertainty of FiSe guidance? But we are talking about the character who became a self-made billionaire and took his name and image as a superhero to build up a franchise. How is that not an LIE > EIE move?

[thePirate]

Rorschach = ESI

Ti 'morality' does not manifest like it does in him.

[Gilly]

Rorschach is the ultimate Aristocrat.