Sociotypes that flap their arms uncontrollably, are ILE, that's useful bit of info.
LIE, Creative subtype. He is not EP sociotype, but his subtype makes him seem like one superficially.
I've no idea on his type... I could buy SLE or LIE (though I have never.........................never met an LIE like him before).
Dr. Schultz - ILE
Calvin Candie - SEE
Stephen - LSI?
Broomhilda - SEI
People have said I remind them of Beatrix from Kill Bill. I'm not sure how much I like or dislike that.
I love his movies...the violence does not feel real to me. It is just entertainment. I also love Oliver Stone movies. They have a similar vibe style for me.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Lololololololol @Legerdemain (damnit sry @transaerodemain) and I were watching this last night and talking about how Butch and Fabienne were *exactly* like us. Like, the scene with them when they were telling each other how much they loved each other was extra impactful because it was like watching the two of us on screen.
And 4srs I LOVE blueberry pancakes.
Bb i promise i will nevr 4get ur watch!!! I <3 u so much.
Jim, Invisible. "Socionics something something". The16types.info shoutbox; May 15, 2014.
All I know is that his movies really weren't made for people.
After watching this, I have finally arrived at the conclusion that he is actually IEE-Ne Sx/So (7w6 > 6w7).
The interviewer is LSE btw. He helps with showing the contrast between Te and Ne lead.
Sx/So people usually come across as Se valuing because they have this "confrontational"/(semi-)revolutionary vibe and motivation.
But watching the interview, it becomes apparent that Tarantino is actually IEE-Ne.
IEE-Ne can appear similar to an NT because of the boosted Te HA.
His movies have a lot of Counterphobic 6 elements.
Talks in terms of dynamic perception.
(Above satement is static. Static has definjng quality that closes the flow with closure.)
I think directors need to be vdynamic because static are hated by the critics.
Measuring you right now
With IEE-Ne, their Fe is more subdued, for it is not boosted and not valued.
1. Ne ("4.5" D)
2. Fe / Ni ("3.5" D)
3. Te / Fi ("2.5" D)
4. Se / Ti ("1.5" D)
5. Si ("0.5" D)
Tarantino seems to be both Ne lead and Te valuing to me.
His Ethics are there, just a bit subdued as I said. His Communication Style is classic "Passionate", which is ExFx.
He's a beta NF, Ni subtype. His movies are die-hard beta stuff.
His movies fascinate me and his dialogues are so unique, often expertly paced and rivetting - how much tension did you feel while Jews hide under a nazi officer while he ominously, yet charmingly drank a glass of milk? These character interactions are immediatly distinguishable as Quintin's. He can create so much in these tiny micro comsic worlds. 'Jackie Brown' is a real under rated highlight if you are a Quintin fan.
He is so weird and intense and yet fascinating as a person. No current opinion on type and I don't hold any opinion as to major informational element themes are attracting certain people, because I think they have broad appeal anyway.
The last time I seriously looked into it I tentatively concluded LIE. I still consider EIE and SEE plausible options though. There is no doubt whatsoever that he is an Se valuing extrovert.
There was an interview where someone criticized him for the violence in his movies and what kind of message that sends. Essentially his response was that he's not responsible for what the viewers take from it, he feels no need to "manage" this aspect. He basically just makes movies that he thinks are cool. He also is highly imaginative -- he imagines entire movies in his head before writing them, very into the Ni storytelling aspect -- the Inglourious Basterds screenplay ended up being a giant novel that was later cut down to size. He seems to draw from a lot of knowledge about movies and history etc. I see the bringing back of classic actors as an NiFi kind of sentimental nostalgia thing.
The main thing I find strange is that he does seem to use emotional/effusive language more directly than an LIE would normally be comfortable doing.
Last edited by thehotelambush; 11-13-2017 at 06:13 AM.
Used to think he's ILE (somehow Ne-ish), but he's probably LIE-Ni.
There seems to be high degree of similarity. LIE's are dynamically trollish. Progression of story where they are plugged in. ILE's do stuff in another dimension and separate themselves from their internal views.
I have seen few creative LIE's. Pretty similar to them. Needs Uma to kick his behind.
Measuring you right now
Listen to the LIE speak here, 6 minutes are enough to see it:
Strong and vivid dynamic logics (Essentially: "Do it this way, that way, shooting this, that, using this and this...! What I found out from doing this is...") with a lot of temporal intuition, juggling events and dates. Optimistic entrepreneur stereotype pretty much embodied, he states it himself.
In general: He can't value and be ILE, impossible, it's all about playing with time/history + strong visuals with violent peaks, -. He glorifies Gamma SFs in this movies, watch for the lead roles! It all leaves the viewer entirely uncomfortable as I said, PoLR. His role shows up once saying he wants to make going to the movies fun again, but under the premise of : To revive the old days!
Made up my mind about the subtype - LIE-Ni. So is the strongest element. His movies are cult flicks precisely because he always manages to pull something new out of his sleeve. "It could be the new way!", he says in the interview. He wants to reinvent film every time and effectively does so. He also has less of a rational approach because I suppose both irrational intuition elements are at work there. Again this excludes ILE because they ignore while using strong and as a package instead. Quentin however, really doesn't go into , wants to make all of his intuitive ideas applicable.
If he is LIE, then I'm not LIE. And I'm pretty sure that I am LIE.
my friend who I long typed as ILI talks just like Tarantino, and I always associated the mumbling and stuttering with irrationality, so its hard for me to let that go, but on the other hand I could totally reshuffle things in my head and see them both as LIE. maybe a lot of what I attributed to Fe polr was more Si polr in how its this kind of slightly disconcerting energy... maybe the irrationality comes across in speech more if its producing, hence Ni creative may manifest the kind of sometimes strange speech patterns in a way that Ni base may not, since Te creative is more articulate
in general it seems like Ne creatives don't come across with the same preponderance of ticks and so forth, although I suppose that could be a product of 2d Si reigning it in
Last edited by Bertrand; 11-14-2017 at 05:34 AM.
My ILE friend loves his movies atm.
Quentin Tarantino - ISFJ - Dreiser
Beta NF, Fe sub
watched a couple of interviews today. EIE. that was surprisingly easy.
I'm not a big fan of Tarantino either, I like some characters and some scenes in his movies, it's really epic stuff, but that's about it. too gangsta for my tastes.
btw, in the interview posted by Olimpia, I really thought oh hey, it's Babooosh!