I think Brad Pitt is ENTj.
I think Brad Pitt is ENTj.
Last edited by silke; 08-24-2016 at 09:50 AM. Reason: updated videos
I know I saw a thread for him before (right?) but I can't find it.
Type him
"Socionists" type him as LIE. He surely VIs as one.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I could see LIE, he seems Gamma from a superficial view
EII INFj
Forum status: retired
The first video Ryu posted he doesn't seem that natural and his true personality isn't really showing. The second video he was naturally himself, and in rhythm, he looks more LIE in that video, very Gamma, yea. I used to think he is a SLI by plain V.I before I watch any of his video.
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
It doesn't make her anything, as her type isn't dependent on Mr Pitt's.
You're not, you know, implying there is some sort of a connection there, is there? Just seemed like odd phrasing.
When you speak this way, do people often find it convincing?
Why LIE rather than SEE?
brad pitt is def gamma, prolly LIE.
i saw him on good morning america once, he was being interviewed by al roker, who is some type of alpha SF. so al is trying to get him to open up and brad is SO MEAN TO AL ROKER. i can't remember what he said and i wasn't even sure i disagreed with what he said but it was really fucking mean on national tv. and to harmless al roker of all people. i stopped liking him then.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
You didn't answer my question.
It seemed like you've been very evasive in this thread, saying it's obvious that somebody is whatever type, and comparing it to identifying a color. When people say things like that, I feel like someone is saying "just trust me and believe that I know what I'm talking about" - so it did not garner me believing your assertion. It just told me that you want me to believe you.
Also, whatever that was that I just quoted sounded like the opposite of being precise. So I'm a bit confused when you say you were actually "trying to convey something precisely".
Finally, I asked about other people finding what you said convincing because it seemed like you were attempting to be convincing, or, that what you said had been influential to other people before. ...I'm not sure how to interpret some of what you are doing, so, I'm trying to figure out what's going on.
Good question.Why LIE rather than SEE?
ENTjs are usually "dryer", less animated than he is.
I've never come across a good argument for his being an NT type either.
I would have thought Beta extrovert is an obvious typing. That's just me though, doing my own thing.
SEE/ ESFp
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
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:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
a lot of women and gay guys say Brad Pitt isn't even hot, and he really isn't actually. He's just some hollywood stock boy clone or something. Sure he has an objectively hot body and stuff, but it's way too controlled, forced and narcissistic. It's more how you carry yourself, really- then just an image thing. And it's like he wouldn't even have that erotic of a touch, he almost seems 'asexual' and they're trying to sell him as some fantasy hunk that he just can't seem to pull off.
There's an obvious different energy between a man with real sexual chemistry, and a man that's just plain narcissistic.
Instead of sex appeal or appealing to my emotions, he'd probably feel pretty bland and mathematical to me.
ISTP
he reminds me of Robert Redford. Wasn't he guessed as ENTJ?
Rick types him as such. I don't think it's anywhere near the worst typing, but have been a little suspicious of it regardless. There are a lot of times he comes across as something more ESxp'ish. It's also strange that he is known for being good at things that are typically associated with the SF club. As an NT type this should be highly improbable. If he was ST or NF I could still easily see it, but for him to manifest the strengths opposite to those of his club is just strange.
The Se values and extroversion are crystal clear, though.
I would probably suggest ESTp as the alternative to be reviewed first.
I don't understand the extrovert typing myself. He seems fairly introverted, you can also tell by his acting that it's externally forced out and interaction doesn't come naturally. ISTp I would say, even VIs like one.
ENTj is right, it seems.
SEE
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
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:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I completely agree with Jxtres...
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
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:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
EIE or LIE, IMO.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
PS, Brad Pitt does NOT project animal magnetism; that is projected ONTO him by Hollywood magic and the roles he plays. He actually seems rather calm and self-contained for the most part, with a touch of erratic, gregarious charm.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
OOOOOOHHHhHH
OOOOHHHHH
YES YES YES HE DOES. Especially in the movie Legends of the Fall and Fight club
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
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:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
THIS is Animal Magnetism:
Compare:
Brando is casual, his presence is heavy, his movements are smooth; Pitt seems lighter, a bit more removed, somewhat stiff and jerky by comparison. Both have a particular kind of casual charisma that I see mostly in Se valuing extroverts, but Pitt's is more boyish, a bit sly, and clearly composed, whereas Brando's is more nonchalant and natural seeming.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Seconded.
Pitt has lots of personality, and IMO he's actually a rather good actor, but he is very deliberate in the changes he makes to his personality to fit a role; his natural personality shows throw in many rights, but he does adapt to roles in subtle ways that I think go largely unnoticed by people who are over-focused on his celebrity and tend to either adore him unconditionally or write him off as hollow.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
He was awesome in Inglorious Basterds, especially in the part where he "speaks" italian. I don't know his type.