Mary Poppins

68097 · Dec 30, 2013

Mary is either an extremely warm ENTJ or a very brilliant ESFP. Both have the same functions, just in a different order.

No Fe -- none. Watch her scene where everyone gets the giggles. Mary is not only unamused, she's totally unaffected by her environment -- Fi. She has no problem calling people out on their BS, either -- and she doesn't care how they take it. She's warm and entertaining but also detached enough to walk away at the end.

Se -- she can be very spontaneous and totally aware of her environment (leaping into pictures, taking immediate advantage of Mr. Banks, setting out to make her room livable, etc). She's not afraid of doing reckless things like flying around on clouds or dancing on rooftops, either. Mary is fashionable and put-together.

Ni -- specific vision: change Mr. Banks. No other option, just that.

Te -- organizing everyone in that house to do exactly what she wants them to do, in exactly the manner she wants them to do it -- from arranging Mr. Banks' fiasco at the bank to getting the children to clean up the house.

I went with ESFP because they tend to be more outgoing, but ENTJ works just as well -- with a very warm exterior.

FearAndTrembling · Dec 30, 2013

angelcat said:
Mary is either an extremely warm ENTJ or a very brilliant ESFP. Both have the same functions, just in a different order.

No Fe -- none. Watch her scene where everyone gets the giggles. Mary is not only unamused, she's totally unaffected by her environment -- Fi. She has no problem calling people out on their BS, either -- and she doesn't care how they take it. She's warm and entertaining but also detached enough to walk away at the end.

Se -- she can be very spontaneous and totally aware of her environment (leaping into pictures, taking immediate advantage of Mr. Banks, setting out to make her room livable, etc). She's not afraid of doing reckless things like flying around on clouds or dancing on rooftops, either. Mary is fashionable and put-together.

Ni -- specific vision: change Mr. Banks. No other option, just that.

Te -- organizing everyone in that house to do exactly what she wants them to do, in exactly the manner she wants them to do it -- from arranging Mr. Banks' fiasco at the bank to getting the children to clean up the house.

I went with ESFP because they tend to be more outgoing, but ENTJ works just as well -- with a very warm exterior.

I realized that fictional characters can't be typed. What is a character made of? The thoughts and experiences of the author. Which are not entirely his own. If I create a character, I create a collage of my experiences. What motivates people, and how do they act? I know what motivates me, and how I act. So every character will have some INFJ in him. But I have to go outside myself. I look at my friends, and how society acts. Which is a ton of different personalities.

So, I take all these experiences, which include my personality, and the personality of all the other people I have observed, and I chop them up, reduce, them and throw them in a pile indiscriminately. Now, all these experiences are simply "materials" to be used. They are all mashed together like a meatball, so that distinctions are lost and materials otherwise separate are united, and reconstructed in such a way that they never represent a single individual or personality type, but a unique collection of them.

It's like eating a meal with many different flavors, and one person says "I taste onion", while another says, "I taste mustard". or something. They each find a different flavor, because it's all in there. Depends on your tastes and what you are looking for.

d e c a d e n t · Dec 30, 2013

FearAndTrembling said:
I realized that fictional characters can't be typed. What is a character made of? The thoughts and experiences of the author. Which are not entirely his own.

If the author gives the character those thoughts, then those thought become that character's.

Of course interpretations of characters are subjective, since they are fictional and so there are no real facts. But I think it's still possible to find a most likely interpretation of a character's type.

FallingSlowly · Dec 30, 2013

Definitely ExTJ of sorts.

I'd lean more ESTJ because I read the books, but I get why the film version evokes a feeling of Ni over Si in some people, and they lean more ENTJ.
No Fe, I don't see that at all, for reasons others have already mentioned.

So yes, definitely Te dom.

FearAndTrembling · Dec 30, 2013

Nonsense said:
If the author gives the character those thoughts, then those thought become that character's.

Of course interpretations of characters are subjective, since they are fictional and so there are no real facts. But I think it's still possible to find a most likely interpretation of a character's type.

The source is still from outside the author though. One has to understand people to write about them. The character is never based on a specific type or person, but a collection of them. That's what imagination is. Mixing things together that were previously not mixed. Everyone is using the same materials, but arrange them differently into a unique synthesis. The whole becomes something different that the parts it is made of. That's actually what Jung said about art. Art isn't man, and an artist is not an individual. He is "collective man". A collection of psyches of mankind.

d e c a d e n t · Dec 30, 2013

FearAndTrembling said:
The source is still from outside the author though.

So?

One has to understand people to write about them.

They probably won't be that well-written otherwise, no.

The character is never based on a specific type or person, but a collection of them.

Can you be so sure of that, though?

FearAndTrembling · Dec 30, 2013

FallingSlowly said:
Definitely ExTJ of sorts.

I'd lean more ESTJ because I read the books, but I get why the film version evokes a feeling of Ni over Si in some people, and they lean more ENTJ.
No Fe, I don't see that at all, for reasons others have already mentioned.

So yes, definitely Te dom.

I'm out of my element in knowledge of Mary Poppins, but a couple of thoughts:

1. INFJ do not like to mix work and play. This is broader than an INFJ thing but could explain her seemingly un Fe like nature. I am much more cold and uptight at work. I do not tolerate "play" either, and others know that. It is business. You work, then you play. You don't mix. I have a very strict compartmentalization between work, and outside of it. I could be mistyped if you only saw me at work. Again, I don't know Poppins well, but it seems we only see her at "work". All my shields are up at work. I can not work in a play environment. I just can't.

2. A lot of her interaction seems to be children based. This is very relevant. Adults are more insecure than children. I don't have to laugh at a child's jokes. If a child is boring me with a story, I can hush him up and tell him now is not the time. I can't do that with an adult. Because they are more fragile. My Fe is stronger with them. I adjust my Fe as necessary.

It's like Superman. Nerds like to argue who can beat up who among superheros. And of course Superman always comes up, and there is a lot of debate because there seems to be some inconsistency in his strength. In some places he exhibits strength much more than in other instances. It is inconsistent. And I thought one of the writers had a perfect response for these nerds: "Superman is as strong as he needs to be." Exactly. If he is holding a baby he may only be as strong as you or me. He feels out the situation and adjusts accordingly. His strength appears inconsistent, because it IS inconsistent. Same thing can be done with Fe. Poppins is as strong as she needs to be. If she isn't around people with fragile egos, she doesn't need as much Fe. I don't need as much Fe around kids either.

INFJ are all about appropriateness, and Poppins is being appropriate for the situation, even if she isn't being "appropriate" in the larger sense. She isn't actually hurting anybody, so harmony is being maintained. Poppins could still be said to be using Fe because she is always using the "objective" appropriateness for each environment.

Word Dispenser · Dec 30, 2013

FearAndTrembling said:
I'm out of my element in knowledge of Mary Poppins, but a couple of thoughts:

1. INFJ do not like to mix work and play. This is broader than an INFJ thing but could explain her seemingly un Fe like nature. I am much more cold and uptight at work. I do not tolerate "play" either, and others know that. It is business. You work, then you play. You don't mix. I have a very strict compartmentalization between work, and outside of it. I could be mistyped if you only saw me at work. Again, I don't know Poppins well, but it seems we only see her at "work". All my shields are up at work. I can not work in a play environment. I just can't.

2. A lot of her interaction seems to be children based. This is very relevant. Adults are more insecure than children. I don't have to laugh at a child's jokes. If a child is boring me with a story, I can hush him up and tell him now is not the time. I can't do that with an adult. Because they are more fragile. My Fe is stronger with them. I adjust my Fe as necessary.

It's like Superman. Nerds like to argue who can beat up who among superheros. And of course Superman always comes up, and there is a lot of debate because there seems to be some inconsistency in his strength. In some places he exhibits strength much more than in other instances. It is inconsistent. And I thought one of the writers had a perfect response for these nerds: "Superman is as strong as he needs to be." Exactly. If he is holding a baby he may only be as strong as you or me. He feels out the situation and adjusts accordingly. His strength appears inconsistent, because it IS inconsistent. Same thing can be done with Fe. Poppins is as strong as she needs to be. If she isn't around people with fragile egos, she doesn't need as much Fe. I don't need as much Fe around kids either.

INFJ are all about appropriateness, and Poppins is being appropriate for the situation, even if she isn't being "appropriate" in the larger sense. She isn't actually hurting anybody, so harmony is being maintained. Poppins could still be said to be using Fe because she is always using the "objective" appropriateness for each environment.

I'd just like to say that I do appreciate your support in my initial reading, and flattered that you think that I actually have some grasp of the terrain of personality type. I think I've got a lot to learn.

roud:

I do concede that Mary Poppins is likely a Te-dominant type, though. It's just that the portrayal is coloured by Julie Andrews, a very clear ENFP. I think that this is making the character stronger, if anything, with the illusion of depth. But that is the source of the mixed signals that I saw.

Remember that even if you relate to someone's behaviour and portrayal, even if it's an overwhelming amount, that doesn't necessarily mean they will share your personality type. I could probably relate to pretty much anyone, of any type, in some way. You seem to be personalizing the typing.

All of the arguments given for Mary Poppins being a Te-dom has been well-reasoned and logical. It makes sense.

Me being way off on the INFJ idea also makes sense-- I usually get INFJs wrong. I think I see one where there isn't, and I fail to see one where there is. :laughing:

Entropic · Dec 30, 2013

FearAndTrembling said:
My god:

And you're in her head? What is a bigger indicator of thought than behavior? When you remove behavior, you remove the empirical basis and resort to mind reading. Which is why people like you can be "experts" on the subject, because there are no experts.

Yes. That's what I do. I mind read people. I don't experience a need for empirical basis because Jungian type does not exist within the realms of empiri. Jung claims as much himself. And expertise is garnered when it's shown that others are capable of seeing or reaching the same conclusions you are, but you do it more efficiently.

That's because she IS in the concrete, and talking to children. I am not interested in the best ways to take medicine either, but if was a nanny, I would be. Jesus. Are you capable of seeing anything from anyone else's perspective, or any kind of context? She formed a plan, that works, that is appropriate for the situation. The end.

But she's not doing it from the perspective of an INFJ.

I can't relate to you at all. You don't even understand analogy or metaphor. You just memorized a bunch of people who did. You're all map, no terrain. You know nothing about the terrain. All you have is maps. Word Dispenser is actually on the terrain, something you will never touch.

No, of course you don't because you share WD's functions, not mine. You're not an Ni type, though you are pretty much the only person who thinks so. Why do you agree with her cognition in the first place? Ne.

I think your thinking is extremely concrete and detail-oriented. It's like you can never leave the sensory quite. You are always located in actual reality at some level. You need objects to exist. That's as concrete as it can get for me. I don't do that. You're the one who need to re-evaluate things about yourself and your understanding. I don't.

Word Dispenser · Dec 30, 2013

ephemereality said:
No, of course you don't because you share WD's functions, not mine. You're not an Ni type, though you are pretty much the only person who thinks so. Why do you agree with her cognition in the first place? Ne

I never saw his typing thread, so I'm not getting into whether he's an INFJ or not... But I don't think he agreed with my cognition as much as he agreed with the result of my cognition. It's obviously a case of personalization of type. An unfortunate, common affliction. The cure? Certainly not a spoonful of sugar. ^^

"This person has many qualities which I admire and possess, therefore we must be kindred spirits of sameyness."

It'd be almost ironic if he wasn't an INFJ, in this case.

Not related, just curious-- Does Ni always disagree with the cognition of Ne, and vice versa? Obviously they wouldn't be coming from the same page, but is it going to be consistently grating, as you seem to describe?

FearAndTrembling · Dec 31, 2013

ephemereality said:
Yes. That's what I do. I mind read people. I don't experience a need for empirical basis because Jungian type does not exist within the realms of empiri. Jung claims as much himself. And expertise is garnered when it's shown that others are capable of seeing or reaching the same conclusions you are, but you do it more efficiently.

But she's not doing it from the perspective of an INFJ.

No, of course you don't because you share WD's functions, not mine. You're not an Ni type, though you are pretty much the only person who thinks so. Why do you agree with her cognition in the first place? Ne.

I think your thinking is extremely concrete and detail-oriented. It's like you can never leave the sensory quite. You are always located in actual reality at some level. You need objects to exist. That's as concrete as it can get for me. I don't do that. You're the one who need to re-evaluate things about yourself and your understanding. I don't.

Yeah, I'm the detailed oriented one. Says the guy who says in 10,000 words, what I can say in 20. You rely on details. You present so many, intentionally, to obscure the big idea.

This is why you can never understand new things. Because there is no algorithm for you to follow. This is why I never see you in any forum like debate, philosophy, or critical thinking. Because there is no framework for you to follow. You are lost when you have to think on your own. Nobody ever specifically covered Mary Poppins, so you falter, because nobody has memorized anything for you to regurgitate. Talking to you is like talking to google search engine.

You localize everything. Oh, I don't think about fixing a car. Well, somebody has to. You never, ever see the big picture. Only the smallest details of it do you notice. The medicine was a detail. I guess an INFJ can never be a mechanic , because I don't care how cars work.

You can't memorize soul. You can't reconstruct it, but you try in every post. Now hit me with a wall of text that says nothing, as usual, to obscure that fact.

It must be so rewarding to know so much about so little.

Entropic · Dec 31, 2013

Word Dispenser said:
I never saw his typing thread, so I'm not getting into whether he's an INFJ or not... But I don't think he agreed with my cognition as much as he agreed with the result of my cognition. It's obviously a case of personalization of type. An unfortunate, common affliction. The cure? Certainly not a spoonful of sugar. ^^

Yes, but what is causing the result of your thinking? NeTi. It's not so much the conclusion but your thinking process that was indicated at in my opinion.

"This person has many qualities which I admire and possess, therefore we must be kindred spirits of sameyness."

It'd be almost ironic if he wasn't an INFJ, in this case.

There's no type me thread available, but I think this individual has made it pretty evident in several threads on the forum that NiFe is not the preferred cognition to be honest. Si seems to be very strongly emphasized to the point it irks me, with Ti.

Not related, just curious-- Does Ni always disagree with the cognition of Ne, and vice versa? Obviously they wouldn't be coming from the same page, but is it going to be consistently grating, as you seem to describe?

Yes, pretty much, because Ni and Ne want to understand something in opposite directions.

FearAndTrembling said:
Yeah, I'm the detailed oriented one. Says the guy who says in 10,000 words, what I can say in 20. You rely on details. You present so many, intentionally, to obscure the big idea.

Because my thinking is so complicated I cannot do with less without losing sight of what I am actually trying to express at all. It's not the number of words - it's the meaning behind them that matters. You don't see it of course, because of lack of shared cognition.

This is why you can never understand new things. Because there is no algorithm for you to follow.

Irrationality does not work with algorithms in the sense you seem to express here, that's within the realms of Thinking, though to be utterly precise, my reasoning process is called dialectic-algorithmic in socionics, because my thinking relies upon algorithms and it tends to pan out the same way most flowcharts do.

So just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

This is why I never see you in any forum like debate, philosophy, or critical thinking. Because there is no framework for you to follow.

Actually, I don't like the debate, philosophy or critical thinking forums on PerC because they are so fucking dumb and shallow for most of the part. I like the theory forums more because people actually theorize instead of thinking that claiming "I don't like feminism" is an expression of critical thinking.

You are lost when you have to think on your own.

Actually, one of the more common compliments I received from my teachers is my ability to critically and independently think while I was still studying in school, so I would say I'm very good at thinking on my own, thank you very much.

Nobody ever specifically covered Mary Poppins, so you falter, because nobody has memorized anything for you to regurgitate.

What? Make a bit more sense please.

Talking to you is like talking to google search engine.

Funny you get so hung up on my Te all the time, and constantly expresses that I should think through the lens of Ti. I won't because I'm not a Ti type, obviously.

You localize everything. Oh, I don't think about fixing a car. Well, somebody has to. You never, ever see the big picture. Only the smallest details of it do you notice. The medicine was a detail. I guess an INFJ can never be a mechanic , because I don't care how cars work.

Big picture huh? Such a limited framework you operate with to begin with. Look at you, assuming objects exist in the concrete. I already wrote that I don't need to operate on the idea that objects exist in order for my thinking to operate. It's very far removed from anything concerning "big picture". It's beyond big picture. What I see is deeper, bigger, grander and greater, more universal than any "big picture" claim you can think of.

You can't memorize soul. You can't reconstruct it, but you try in every post. Now hit me with a wall of text that says nothing, as usual, to obscure that fact.

The problem is that you're a blind man who thinks he can see just because he put on a pair of glasses. Nothing more, nothing less.

It must be so rewarding to know so much about so little.

Oh, you mean about you? Yeah, totally must be rewarding being a fool unbeknownst to you, since if you weren't you'd know that you were and would stop being one.

FallingSlowly · Dec 31, 2013

FearAndTrembling said:
I'm out of my element in knowledge of Mary Poppins, but a couple of thoughts:

1. INFJ do not like to mix work and play. This is broader than an INFJ thing but could explain her seemingly un Fe like nature. I am much more cold and uptight at work. I do not tolerate "play" either, and others know that. It is business. You work, then you play. You don't mix. I have a very strict compartmentalization between work, and outside of it. I could be mistyped if you only saw me at work. Again, I don't know Poppins well, but it seems we only see her at "work". All my shields are up at work. I can not work in a play environment. I just can't.

Not mixing work and play hasn't predominantly to do with cognition IMHO. I mix work and play quite often because I'm a creative. And when I teach, I definitely engage Fe (and other functions by the way). Fe also isn't necessarily always more "warm". If you ever had an argument with someone who reasons from a Fe standpoint, you'll probably know that

2. A lot of her interaction seems to be children based. This is very relevant. Adults are more insecure than children. I don't have to laugh at a child's jokes. If a child is boring me with a story, I can hush him up and tell him now is not the time. I can't do that with an adult. Because they are more fragile. My Fe is stronger with them. I adjust my Fe as necessary.

I agree that most adults carry more baggage, but to say Fe is automatically "stronger" when working with adults is very black and white. If anything, it's a personal preference. It's not like that for every individual. A kid can be as much an object in the cognitive sense as an adult.

Other judging functions can also mimic Fe in seeming "appropriate" to the observer. You can literally get the same outcome, even in the same individual, by engaging Ti, for instance. It's just how you get there that's different. I agree with @ephemereality that the cognitive process is not necessarily always observable by just looking at the outcome. If you want to look at it that way, you're better off with Keirsey tbh.

Using any of the four judging functions can outwardly lead to the same result. You'd only know which one I used if you actually asked me about my reasoning process, and then you maybe still wouldn't assume I always do it that way.

I personally think that ideally, you'd need to be able to look at people for a while, and in different situations, ask them why they do things the way they do, to get a better idea about their perception and reasoning. That's obviously something we can't really do with fictional characters, so typing will always be a bit haphazard anyway - on that, we can probably agree.

Example: I have a friend who engages Fe very obviously in certain situations. He also likes to surround himself with strong Fe users, if you have a look at his closest relationships. He's neither ENFJ nor INFJ though - he's ISTP. If you meet him in different situations and get to know him a bit better, you will notice that he's actually Ti dom. If you just look at him once and pick out that one situation, you will possibly mistype.

So with regards to Mary Poppins: I personally don't see her as Ni dom at all (the fact that she flies with her umbrella really doesn't matter

). She might prove me otherwise if she talks to me one day and I can pick her brains a bit, but until then, I assume she's not an irrational, perceiving type. She seems rational (in the Jungian sense) to the core. Still leaves a lot of types to play with if you're adverse to ESTJ...

68097 · Dec 31, 2013

Mary doesn't look like an ESTJ. If she were, she'd use Si -- past experiences -- and Ne -- kind of an overall vision and an explosion of a million different ideas. I see more Se and Ni in her.

d e c a d e n t · Dec 31, 2013

angelcat said:
Mary doesn't look like an ESTJ. If she were, she'd use Si -- past experiences -- and Ne -- kind of an overall vision and an explosion of a million different ideas. I see more Se and Ni in her.

I think she would mainly use Te, then Si and Ne. And Ne-users don't necessarily get explosions of ideas like that when it's not their main function.

68097 · Dec 31, 2013

What's an example of her Si?

Word Dispenser · Jan 1, 2014

angelcat said:
What's an example of her Si?

She doesn't say it as such, but the way she talks about things may very well be through the lens of a strong Si.

The things she says have an underlying theme: 'Here are my impression-experiences, and this is the best way to do this, based on those impressions'

Kind of thing.

Example:

'You see, with every job that must be done, there is an element of fun. You find that fun, and *snap*, the job's a game! And every task you undertake, becomes a piece of cake! A lark! A spree! It's very clear to seeeeee.'

So, she's giving the children one way of doing it, and what she believes is the best way. And that's based on her Si impressions.

googoodoll · Jan 1, 2014

lol having an imagination doesn't make her an N, i see nothing but SJ when i see Mary Poppins.

Swordsman of Mana · Jan 1, 2014

angelcat said:
Mary is either an extremely warm ENTJ or a very brilliant ESFP. Both have the same functions, just in a different order.

No Fe -- none. Watch her scene where everyone gets the giggles. Mary is not only unamused, she's totally unaffected by her environment -- Fi. She has no problem calling people out on their BS, either -- and she doesn't care how they take it. She's warm and entertaining but also detached enough to walk away at the end.

Se -- she can be very spontaneous and totally aware of her environment (leaping into pictures, taking immediate advantage of Mr. Banks, setting out to make her room livable, etc). She's not afraid of doing reckless things like flying around on clouds or dancing on rooftops, either. Mary is fashionable and put-together.

Ni -- specific vision: change Mr. Banks. No other option, just that.

Te -- organizing everyone in that house to do exactly what she wants them to do, in exactly the manner she wants them to do it -- from arranging Mr. Banks' fiasco at the bank to getting the children to clean up the house.

I went with ESFP because they tend to be more outgoing, but ENTJ works just as well -- with a very warm exterior.

bingo! no Fe user sits there annoyed when people are laughing and having a good time.

googoodoll · Jan 1, 2014

the book version mabye, but i never even knew it was a book to begin with, i'm referring to Julie Andrews' portrayal is the quintessential SJ.

Mary Poppins

68097

FearAndTrembling

d e c a d e n t

FallingSlowly

FearAndTrembling

d e c a d e n t

FearAndTrembling

Word Dispenser

Entropic

Word Dispenser

FearAndTrembling

Entropic

FallingSlowly

68097

d e c a d e n t

68097

Word Dispenser

googoodoll

Swordsman of Mana

googoodoll

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities