Personality Cafe banner

41 - 52 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,126 Posts
THAT was exactly why I opened this thread. Both of those have happened to me. A decade back, I got INTP and now ENTP. Also, I got ENFP couple of times. Connor Walsh from How to get away with Murder is supposedly a very good example of ENTP and I thought there is no way I am like that. I have feelings, and I am aware of them, and I express myself (though that bit has gotten better over time)
Well Michael Kelso from that 70s show and Ariel are enfp - can't relate to them at all lol but apparently we share the same cognitive functions - I understand your pain :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
596 Posts
Discussion Starter #42
I find people reveal more about themselves in the way they describe themselves, rather than what they are actually saying. You seem way too earnest and soulful and modest to be an ENTP to me :tongue: And btw, Oscar Wilde, the writer quoted in your avi, was a major ENFP.
I don't know about Oscar wilde's typing for sure, so I cannot speak about that. But the rest of it if true just brings me back to ENxP, i.e. Square Frikkin One. :laughing:

I think it's pretty weird you think Jane Austen is underrated. Among literate women, she is almost a messianic figure. There are etiquette guides on how to be like Jane Austen, there were popular horror parodies of her novels, there was a recent movie called the Jane Austen book club, her books were adapted into high profile films in the 90's. Her work is very much a part of our cultural consciousness even today. She is probably considered to be the greatest female novelist of all-time and I would argue is more widely read than Dickens these days. I wouldn't say she is overlooked at all.

Harry Potter came out less than 20 years ago. Pride and Prejudice over 200 years ago. We shall see how well people remember Hogwarts in a couple centuries.
It is not about Harry Potter versus Jane Austen. I am saying that she is largely seen as a rom-com genre writer, or a romance novelist. There was even an article about how she pioneered a certain style of writing and sharp, insightful commentary which would have been taken seriously had it been said by a man. She deserves all the credit and more for her abilities, and deserves to be recognized or associated with more than just Regency era romance. I have had heated discussions with people who call her books "chick-lit", so believe me when I say that I greatly revere her. What I said was something I paraphrased from that article. Relatively overlooked in the sense of how it might have been received had a man written it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
It is not about Harry Potter versus Jane Austen. I am saying that she is largely seen as a rom-com genre writer, or a romance novelist. There was even an article about how she pioneered a certain style of writing and sharp, insightful commentary which would have been taken seriously had it been said by a man. She deserves all the credit and more for her abilities, and deserves to be recognized or associated with more than just Regency era romance. I have had heated discussions with people who call her books "chick-lit", so believe me when I say that I greatly revere her. What I said was something I paraphrased from that article. Relatively overlooked in the sense of how it might have been received had a man written it.
I don't think she would be more respected if a man had written it. She might have more male readers (but let's be real, WAY more women read fiction than men these days anyway, so it wouldn't change much), but being considered one of the greatest novelists who ever lived sounds about right in terms of respect (the only one who clearly trumps her in my books is Tolstoy, but you could make an arguments for a few other authors). Just about anyone that has read a couple of her novels knows how sharp her social commentary is (male/female). She's not even an especially romantic author, compared to, say, the Bronte sisters and their tempestuous, gothic stuff. On a sidenote, Jane Austen might well even be an NT, but I would have to research more to be sure.

Look at Oscar Wilde, he made cutting social commentary about 19th century social values/manners, and I wouldn't say people take him more seriously than Austen. George Eliot did take a man's name, and really put 19th century society under a microscope, but do people take HER more seriously than Austen? Not really.

I think the reason she is dogged by the chick lit label is because her work has been co-opted by the chick lit. book club culture. It's sort of like judging a work by its following. But people who think that are mostly people who haven't truly read her. If there is a male bias against it, it's mostly just because the subject matter (a 19th century book about manners and marriage) doesn't much appeal to them. And whatever the male bias is against it, the female bias FOR it, surely makes up for it. Her legacy is just fine.

I'm glad you clearly appreciate great literature though, for all my bickering.

As a sidebar, I was just thinking about Jane, because one of my favourite comedians Louis CK was on the Jimmy Fallon show the other night, and said it was selfish just to plug his own stuff, so he pulled out a dog-eared copy of pride and Prejudice and recommended that as well. So at least some guys don't dismiss her as chick lit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,073 Posts
I have just finished watching the sequel and it is all about following your own heart, going where your dreams take you. The most telling scene is when she is failing at finishing school (part of a Princess's education apparently) and she realizes as she looks in the mirror "It is not me, I do things best the way I do them", then there is a song where defies all the rules, plucks the rule book out of her tutor's hands gently but firmly, admonishing her and then asking her to dance. So, I think (but I could be wrong here) this demonstrates a good Fi usage rather than the comfort of her old ways. She even helps Anastasia get together with the town baker, against stepmother's wishes.
I suppose it is an ethical crisis then, dealing with conflict of self and external demands and expectations. Makes sense for it to be Fi... though whole idea of Disney has been attributed to Fe as it offers moral lessons instead of exploration and fine-tuning morality.

Tempest, yes! That is the word I was looking for. I think the most telling moment there was she snuck out as it was about to rain, to go see Willoughby one last time and then she ends up getting soaked to the bone as well as getting pneumonia. Very good observation about the sibling dynamic. Could one extend that to Darcy/Georgiana, Caroline/Bingley (one knowledgeable and the other, the romantic even though Caroline didn't exactly have his best interests at heart)? Or Jane or Lizzy/Lydia? Although Lydia isn't so much a naive romantic. I think she and Mary Crawford know exactly what they are doing, but I think Lydia does it because she is unaware of the ramifications of her actions. She is 16 when she elopes right? Catherine at age 17 is said to be "as vapid and uninformed as the female mind is at seventeen years" (I have read these way too many times!) so one can't exactly expect her to even think of the consequences like social humiliation, or getting ostracized, or getting knocked up and then being deserted by Wicked Wickham. I think Lydia could be ESFP. Would you agree with that?
Perhaps Austen herself had a similar balancing relationship with her sister Cassandra? We just don't know, pure speculation, but it would make sense since the pattern seems to emerge all the time!

I got the impression Lydie knew precisely what she was doing, but was quite unconsiderate of the consequences. Can't judge the poor girl though, she had to marry Wickham, which always gave me chills... imagine the family meetings. The atmosphere would be hard to bear. Just feels wrong that after everything he had done, he became a family member. Considering the moral obligations of that society, seems odd and justified at the same time.. can't have been a happy marriage, that is for sure. Tells a lot about a society and era, all this, who gets to marry who and what not. How matrimony is presented in fiction can be quite revealing. Austen's work in this retrospect is especially fascinating.

Lydia might have been an ESFP, though rather immature one (well, she was a child after all).

Austen is an extremely perceptive and intelligent woman, whose writings are rather under-rated. I wonder if she would have garnered greater appreciation if she had gone rowling's route and picked a pseudonym or written as J. Austen.
Hm! The Brontë sisters did that, I think... Then pondering on how on earth a femal could have written such a violent piece as Wuthering Heights. Oh, but surely -- Tolstoy for instance, I believe, is highly appreciated for his eye for female psychology on Anna Karenina, so perhaps similar phrases would have been addressed to J. Austen as well.

Look at Oscar Wilde, he made cutting social commentary about 19th century social values/manners, and I wouldn't say people take him more seriously than Austen. George Eliot did take a man's name, and really put 19th century society under a microscope, but do people take HER more seriously than Austen? Not really.
Good point on poor Wilde. What is interesting to note, however, is how both Wilde and Austen have achieved almost cultish status in literary circles. Both have their dedicated followers. Great artists tend to find their limelight sooner or later, sadly they might not live long enough to greet their audience.

I think the reason she is dogged by the chick lit label is because her work has been co-opted by the chick lit. book club culture
Bridget Jones's Diary, I am looking at you ;)

Ooops... we made this into a literary thread. I don't mind if you don't!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
596 Posts
Discussion Starter #45
Well Michael Kelso from that 70s show and Ariel are enfp - can't relate to them at all lol but apparently we share the same cognitive functions - I understand your pain :)
Glad you understand :)

Perhaps Austen herself had a similar balancing relationship with her sister Cassandra? We just don't know, pure speculation, but it would make sense since the pattern seems to emerge all the time!
We don't have to guess, I think a compilation of all her correspondence with Cassandra and her niece have been published. In that, (from what I read in the blurbs) Jane comes across as the Elizabeth and Cassandra appears to be the Anne/Jane of the duo. Of course these letters can also be found in some articles that make the assumption that they were extremely close, closer than sisters (if you know what I mean.) First, Sherlock and John. Now, this. Why won't people just let it be? (sorry, it is a personal peeve of mine when people just "ship" Sherlock and John). Anyway, it is not only about emerging patterns but there is some evidence in the letters that suggests that she may have modelled some of her characters after people the sisters knew, sort of like a joke that only they were privy to.

I got the impression Lydie knew precisely what she was doing, but was quite unconsiderate of the consequences. Can't judge the poor girl though, she had to marry Wickham, which always gave me chills... imagine the family meetings. The atmosphere would be hard to bear. Just feels wrong that after everything he had done, he became a family member. Considering the moral obligations of that society, seems odd and justified at the same time.. can't have been a happy marriage, that is for sure. Tells a lot about a society and era, all this, who gets to marry who and what not. How matrimony is presented in fiction can be quite revealing. Austen's work in this retrospect is especially fascinating.
I think Lydia's behaviour is largely Mrs. Bennet's fault + her own impetuous nature but that woman conditioned her daughters into believing that landing a handsome rich gentleman was one's only goal (although I am not sure what else women of that era could have done, as far as achievements go i.e. besides society is to blame. Society creates Lydias. Even to this day. Maybe it is judging women, or body shaming or making them feel like they are less, or that they need a man in order to feel whole but then you have a string of insecure girls looking for love in all the wrong places, vulnerable to the Wickhams and Willoughbys of our world. You are right, it is extremely fascinating when you see how many threads just connect to one another, all these hidden connections emerging beneath the romance of Pride and Prejudice.

P.S. Do you know if it was socially approved if a couple with a great age difference (say, 16-17 years) married in those times? Like Emma and Knightley? It is so creepy when you realize he has basically seen her as a baby and guided her all through her life. How long has this guy been in love with her? Sheesh. Also, while writing this I realized that the only difference between Emma and Fanny, or rather why Emma didn't become another Fanny is because of her wealth and station in life. Someone once calculated the worth of Emma Wodehouse's assets, and it turns out she is richer than Darcy (he IS the richest character right?)! She could, as she said lived a comfortable life up till she was an old maid with all sort of creature comforts. But of course english law at the time might not have allowed her to inherit Highbury, which means upon the passing of her father the estate would go to the youngest Knightley. Emma's nephew. That of course takes away from her, her net worth. However, as mistress of Donwell abbey she is equally mistress of Highbury. One might argue she married for money, LOL.

That is just


Lydia might have been an ESFP, though rather immature one (well, she was a child after all).
YES! So I did get Lydia's type right. Ten points to Gryffindor :laughing:

Hm! The Brontë sisters did that, I think... Then pondering on how on earth a female could have written such a violent piece as Wuthering Heights. Oh, but surely -- Tolstoy for instance, I believe, is highly appreciated for his eye for female psychology on Anna Karenina, so perhaps similar phrases would have been addressed to J. Austen as well.
You are right, but have you noticed how in general there is rampant double standards among the sexes? Like if a male were to bring his fist down on the table to make a point, he is "passionate" but if a woman does that, she is told to "calm down" and not to be "so emotional". Anyway, I digress. Tthat article I have been talking about forms the core of everything I am trying to say, but I am digging and digging, only striking dirt. No lit gold yet. Humph! Oh about the J. Austen thing, there is another thing that came to mind. There is a Jeeves and Wooster tale where the latter's childhood friend Bingo is in love with a waitress who is actually a popular fiction writer in disguise, gathering some research for her next romance novel. A subterfuge suggested by Jeeves saves the day when Wooster pretends to be the writer of the modern romance novels and Bingo's benefactor is moved to tears by the insightfulness of the young man before him, consenting to the match. When he didn't know the author, Bingo's benefactor had called the books "drivel". (in other words, when he thought it was written by a female) [Oh how I do love a good Jeeves and Wooster tale. I doff my imaginary cap to Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie for fantastic portrayals of the above mentioned characters]

Look how perfectly suited they are -


Great artists tend to find their limelight sooner or later, sadly they might not live long enough to greet their audience.
Didn't Van Gogh (or one of the other great masters, don't remember which one) live in abject poverty?

Ooops... we made this into a literary thread. I don't mind if you don't!
Ha ha I don't mind at all. I welcome it.

I don't think she would be more respected if a man had written it. She might have more male readers (but let's be real, WAY more women read fiction than men these days anyway, so it wouldn't change much), but being considered one of the greatest novelists who ever lived sounds about right in terms of respect (the only one who clearly trumps her in my books is Tolstoy, but you could make an arguments for a few other authors). Just about anyone that has read a couple of her novels knows how sharp her social commentary is (male/female). She's not even an especially romantic author, compared to, say, the Bronte sisters and their tempestuous, gothic stuff. On a sidenote, Jane Austen might well even be an NT, but I would have to research more to be sure.
You are right. Perhaps I mistakenly gave the impression of equating readership with respect. The two are entirely different, and you only need look at the Twilight franchise for the difference. A greater fan-base would have been established, but also she would have commanded a greater respect in the literary elite of her time. An excerpt from an article in the Guardian - Perhaps it seems odd to call Austen “revolutionary” – certainly few of the other great pioneers in the history of the English novel have thought so. From Charlotte Brontë, who found only “neat borders” and elegant confinement in her fiction, to DH Lawrence, who called her “English in the bad, mean, snobbish sense of the word”, many thought her limited to the small world and small concerns of her characters. Some of the great modernists were perplexed. “What is all this about Jane Austen?” Joseph Conrad asked HG Wells. “What is there in her? What is it all about?” “I dislike Jane … Could never see anything in Pride and Prejudice,” Vladimir Nabokov told the critic Edmund Wilson.

I think the reason she is dogged by the chick lit label is because her work has been co-opted by the chick lit. book club culture. It's sort of like judging a work by its following. But people who think that are mostly people who haven't truly read her. If there is a male bias against it, it's mostly just because the subject matter (a 19th century book about manners and marriage) doesn't much appeal to them. And whatever the male bias is against it, the female bias FOR it, surely makes up for it. Her legacy is just fine.
Absolutely, I concede your point on this one. One example of the adoption into chick-lit and chick flick (apart from Bridget Jones, can't say anything because I haven't seen that one) is a movie called Austenland. It features the Henry Tilney actor and is basically a modern day retelling of P and P, but from the pov of maybe if Lizzie was a fan girl/Austen-ite (?)

What was the point I was trying to make? Argh, damn it. I will come back another time, when I remember *shuffles away*

I'm glad you clearly appreciate great literature though, for all my bickering.
Through all this, aren't we actually appreciating her even more? :)

As a sidebar, I was just thinking about Jane, because one of my favourite comedians Louis CK was on the Jimmy Fallon show the other night, and said it was selfish just to plug his own stuff, so he pulled out a dog-eared copy of pride and Prejudice and recommended that as well. So at least some guys don't dismiss her as chick lit.
That's interesting. Maybe I have known only jerks who call the book girly, or chick-lit or what-have-you. One male friend of mine said to me that another was reading P and P, so the first friend said "Oh please, no guy reads Jane Austen IRL. Obviously he is trying to impress you and get in your pants, either that or he is gay". (not my personal opinion) Honestly, I don't know what offended me more :-/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
596 Posts
Discussion Starter #47 (Edited)
I was wondering if it possible for someone to be an ENTP, but more ENFP like around friends, ISFJ/ESFJ (whichever is the gooey/fun passion-oriented romantic) when in a romantic relationship. Can a person wear that many type hats or masks?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,073 Posts
We don't have to guess, I think a compilation of all her correspondence with Cassandra and her niece have been published. In that, (from what I read in the blurbs) Jane comes across as the Elizabeth and Cassandra appears to be the Anne/Jane of the duo. Of course these letters can also be found in some articles that make the assumption that they were extremely close, closer than sisters (if you know what I mean.) First, Sherlock and John. Now, this. Why won't people just let it be? (sorry, it is a personal peeve of mine when people just "ship" Sherlock and John). Anyway, it is not only about emerging patterns but there is some evidence in the letters that suggests that she may have modelled some of her characters after people the sisters knew, sort of like a joke that only they were privy to.
Great! Awfully clever... sounds just exactly what I imagined her to be. Though I suppose an artist must find source material from everywhere around them -- joke would probobaly be even funnier if we only knew who these people were!

People ship anything these days. It's odd, I'll give you that, but also it's one more thing to add into some modern antropological or sociological research (sadly, neither of those is my actual career of choice). Where does the need to ship everything come from? If you think about it objectively, it is plain weird! People fighting over fictional people based on relationships -- almost like sport teams or something *eye roll*.

I think Lydia's behaviour is largely Mrs. Bennet's fault + her own impetuous nature but that woman conditioned her daughters into believing that landing a handsome rich gentleman was one's only goal (although I am not sure what else women of that era could have done, as far as achievements go i.e. besides society is to blame. Society creates Lydias. Even to this day. Maybe it is judging women, or body shaming or making them feel like they are less, or that they need a man in order to feel whole but then you have a string of insecure girls looking for love in all the wrong places, vulnerable to the Wickhams and Willoughbys of our world. You are right, it is extremely fascinating when you see how many threads just connect to one another, all these hidden connections emerging beneath the romance of Pride and Prejudice.
Great analysis on Lydia. She is often seen as the most shallow character, but seems to have lots of depth once you know how to look for it!

P.S. Do you know if it was socially approved if a couple with a great age difference (say, 16-17 years) married in those times? Like Emma and Knightley? It is so creepy when you realize he has basically seen her as a baby and guided her all through her life. How long has this guy been in love with her? Sheesh. Also, while writing this I realized that the only difference between Emma and Fanny, or rather why Emma didn't become another Fanny is because of her wealth and station in life. Someone once calculated the worth of Emma Wodehouse's assets, and it turns out she is richer than Darcy (he IS the richest character right?)! She could, as she said lived a comfortable life up till she was an old maid with all sort of creature comforts. But of course english law at the time might not have allowed her to inherit Highbury, which means upon the passing of her father the estate would go to the youngest Knightley. Emma's nephew. That of course takes away from her, her net worth. However, as mistress of Donwell abbey she is equally mistress of Highbury. One might argue she married for money, LOL.
Yikes, Knightley... can't remember exactly, but I believe age gap wasn't such a big thing back then (perhaps even encourable, seeing how an older man could offer a more stable life etc.) but if young man married an elderly woman, he was considered... well, gold-digger. I suppose around these times society began to slowly move from "marry for money" to "marry for love" -- but then again, Victorian society in particular was notorious for its double standards.

You are right, but have you noticed how in general there is rampant double standards among the sexes? Like if a male were to bring his fist down on the table to make a point, he is "passionate" but if a woman does that, she is told to "calm down" and not to be "so emotional". Anyway, I digress. Tthat article I have been talking about forms the core of everything I am trying to say, but I am digging and digging, only striking dirt. No lit gold yet. Humph! Oh about the J. Austen thing, there is another thing that came to mind. There is a Jeeves and Wooster tale where the latter's childhood friend Bingo is in love with a waitress who is actually a popular fiction writer in disguise, gathering some research for her next romance novel. A subterfuge suggested by Jeeves saves the day when Wooster pretends to be the writer of the modern romance novels and Bingo's benefactor is moved to tears by the insightfulness of the young man before him, consenting to the match. When he didn't know the author, Bingo's benefactor had called the books "drivel". (in other words, when he thought it was written by a female) [Oh how I do love a good Jeeves and Wooster tale. I doff my imaginary cap to Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie for fantastic portrayals of the above mentioned characters]
Wodehouse was so clever (apparently all them british authors!). People say he was a bit featherbrained... still, linguistic genious. I'll always remember one example in particular. Instead of writing "he put the money in his pocket" he wrote "he pocketed the money"!

These two gentlemen make it even more enjoyable. Though Jeeves is a mean one... wouldn't cross him. Like ever.

Didn't Van Gogh (or one of the other great masters, don't remember which one) live in abject poverty?
I think he did. Not to mention his other issues and troubles... slicing of his ear was only a symptom, yet people always mention it as... a separate thing. As if he just... decided to cut it out, nothing to it. There is always something to it.

I was wondering if it possible for someone to be an ENTP, but more ENFP like around friends, ISFJ/ESFJ (whichever is the gooey/fun passion-oriented romantic) when in a romantic relationship. Can a person wear that many type hats or masks?
I can easily see ESFJ because they use the exact same functions and have external focus. Though it depends what you refer to with this. Cognition can't change, but it's only natural we choose different roles around different people (well, at least I've heard Fe-users do this a lot)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,126 Posts
I was wondering if it possible for someone to be an ENTP, but more ENFP like around friends, ISFJ/ESFJ (whichever is the gooey/fun passion-oriented romantic) when in a romantic relationship. Can a person wear that many type hats or masks?
Entp and enfp share the same dominant function and inferior function so it's quite common for them to act alike - also if their value are align then the 2 will seem very similar to one another - I can't even tell the differ sometimes. As for romance - I think it's possible for entp to be emotionally expressive or should I say I've seen spectrum of extremely affectionate romantic entps to the kind that have no clue what love is nor gives a damn- more so on the latter - entp have Fe tert - so it just depends on how strong their Fe is ....however it's hard for me to see one acting anything like an xsfj
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
596 Posts
Discussion Starter #50
Entp and enfp share the same dominant function and inferior function so it's quite common for them to act alike - also if their value are align then the 2 will seem very similar to one another - I can't even tell the differ sometimes. As for romance - I think it's possible for entp to be emotionally expressive or should I say I've seen spectrum of extremely affectionate romantic entps to the kind that have no clue what love is nor gives a damn- more so on the latter - entp have Fe tert - so it just depends on how strong their Fe is ....however it's hard for me to see one acting anything like an xsfj
Thanks for replying @ai.tran.75. Okay I don't know what SJ's are like in love to be fair, but I think what I meant to say is that I become overly emotional and trusting to the point that I don't see the pitstop ahead, when in reality I can easily pick apart people's motives and why someone is the way they purport to be. I have advised and kept away friends from douchebags but I was blind to their faults in my own case. Okay, maybe the Fe comes out stronger when I am in love. I am happier, more creative, more productive even. Just the increase in endorphins, I suppose or even the idea that here is a soul that gets me. But also coming o the masks, if you saw me at work you might not think me an ENTP at all (unless you spoke to me, you might not even see the Ne or the NP part), I am more like an ESTJ at work. It could also be that my work demands of me to be more ESTJ-like. As a lawyer, I cannot expect to be NP ish if I want to hold down my jpb. However I do bring a creative and different approach to problem solving, which my superiors may not always appreciate. But especially law firms have a certain code and way of doing things, so adherence is necessary. So is it a mask I wear?
 
41 - 52 of 52 Posts
Top