Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 48 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,233 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I'm still going with my ISTJ theory.

Oh, he most certainly used Se--during moments of strife.
However, this was a function he was conditioned to amplify.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,233 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
dominant Si?
...no
...Twenty bucks?

Either way, I watched the first two movies yesterday and in the first one he leads with a judging function.
The second and third movies cheapened the character and made him a "Se Master."

I can't help but compare him to other SP agents (James Bond and Jack Bauer).
While Bourne is careful and evades conflict, those two appear to actually thrive on it.
They have an utter lack of respect for rules and break them whenever they can.

For example:

Casino Royale--During a wild parkour chase, Bond wrecks a construction site, storms into an embassy, captures the big baddie and shoots at anybody who stands in his way. When that doesn't pan out, he shoots the douchebag in the chest and runs off.

That's ISTP style, son.

Bourne comes up with all of these intricate plans. Bond doesn't.
While a master of improvisation...Bourne is more strategic than tactical.
Bond is the latter. He just rolls with it. He enjoys it.

Bourne doesn't even smile in Supremacy and Ultimatum. Not one time. He is not enjoying himself.
Given the circumstances, an ISTP would probably be smiling from ear to ear.

As an ISTP myself--I really don't see Bourne as one. There are fundamental differences.
Daniel Craig's Bond--yeah. Most definitely.

*shrugs*
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
17,781 Posts
...Twenty bucks?

Either way, I watched the first two movies yesterday and in the first one he leads with a judging function.
The second and third movies cheapened the character and made him a "Se Master."

I can't help but compare him to other SP agents (James Bond and Jack Bauer).
While Bourne is careful and evades conflict, those two appear to actually thrive on it.
They have an utter lack of respect for rules and break them whenever they can.

For example:

Casino Royale--During a wild parkour chase, Bond wrecks a construction site, storms into an embassy, captures the big baddie and shoots at anybody who stands in his way. When that doesn't pan out, he shoots the douchebag in the chest and runs off.

That's ISTP style, son.

Bourne comes up with all of these intricate plans. Bond doesn't.
While a master of improvisation...Bourne is more strategic than tactical.
Bond is the latter. He just rolls with it. He enjoys it.

Bourne doesn't even smile in Supremacy and Ultimatum. Not one time. He is not enjoying himself.
Given the circumstances, an ISTP would probably be smiling from ear to ear.

As an ISTP myself--I really don't see Bourne as one. There are fundamental differences.
Daniel Craig's Bond--yeah. Most definitely.

*shrugs*
I'm reconsidering and now thinking INTJ
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,233 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
There ya go, boo!
Just roll with the P'ness. You'll get there.

P.S.: The 20 dollar contract is now void.
I said ISTJ, not INTJ.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,233 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Okay! We're getting somewhere.
He's an INTJ. Just not an ISTP.
Because I'm sick of that asshole Bourne being clumped in with us.

Mission Successful!

*leaves*
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,077 Posts
...Twenty bucks?

Either way, I watched the first two movies yesterday and in the first one he leads with a judging function.
The second and third movies cheapened the character and made him a "Se Master."

I can't help but compare him to other SP agents (James Bond and Jack Bauer).
While Bourne is careful and evades conflict, those two appear to actually thrive on it.
They have an utter lack of respect for rules and break them whenever they can.

For example:

Casino Royale--During a wild parkour chase, Bond wrecks a construction site, storms into an embassy, captures the big baddie and shoots at anybody who stands in his way. When that doesn't pan out, he shoots the douchebag in the chest and runs off.

That's ISTP style, son.

Bourne comes up with all of these intricate plans. Bond doesn't.
While a master of improvisation...Bourne is more strategic than tactical.
Bond is the latter. He just rolls with it. He enjoys it.

Bourne doesn't even smile in Supremacy and Ultimatum. Not one time. He is not enjoying himself.
Given the circumstances, an ISTP would probably be smiling from ear to ear.

As an ISTP myself--I really don't see Bourne as one. There are fundamental differences.
Daniel Craig's Bond--yeah. Most definitely.

*shrugs*
I think alot of that has to do with Bourne being a tad more realistic than Bond or 24. NO ONE regardless of type, would enjoy being chased and shot at. Bond only enjoys it because he's an over-the-top cartoon character. And Bourne improvises all the time, it's what he did best all through the movies.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,233 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
I think alot of that has to do with Bourne being a tad more realistic than Bond or 24. NO ONE regardless of type, would enjoy being chased and shot at. Bond only enjoys it because he's an over-the-top cartoon character. And Bourne improvises all the time, it's what he did best all through the movies.
Bourne was not realistic. He lunges himself from bone-breaking heights, crashes vehicles into concrete barriers at full speed, gets shot, punched, kicked, thrown around and manages to evade the world's greatest intelligence agency in between.

And all he walks away with is a slight limp.
Realistic, my ass.

If you watch Ultimatum again, you'll notice that it is kind of a meta experience. It puts you inside the mind of Bourne and it is a taxing movie. It's chock full of so much energy that by the end you are drained.

The difference with Bond is that he is ENERGIZED by action. Bourne is not. It slowly burns through his reserves. He doesn't want action, he just wants to discover who he is and if he was truly a "good" person at the end of the day (Fi). Bond goes out of his way to create problems because, well. It's fun.

Bourne relies on his instinctive training (Si) to improvise and evade danger, whereas Bond disregards "training" and uses his natural kinesthetic gifts (Se) to achieve the objective.

Fine lines, friend.
Fine lines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,077 Posts
Bourne was not realistic. He lunges himself from bone-breaking heights, crashes vehicles into concrete barriers at full speed, gets shot, punched, kicked, thrown around and manages to evade the greatest intelligence agency in the world.

And all he walks away with is a slight limp.
Realistic, my ass.

If you watch Ultimatum again, you'll notice that it is kind of a meta experience. It puts you inside the mind of Bourne and it is a taxing movie. It's chock full of so much energy that by the end you are drained.

The difference with Bond is that he is ENERGIZED by action. Bourne is not. It slowly burns through his reserves. He doesn't want action, he just wants to discover who he is and if he was truly a "good" person at the end of the day (Fi).

Bourne relies on his instinctive training (Si) to improvise and evade danger, whereas Bond disregards "training" and uses his natural kinesthetic gifts (Se) to achieve the objective.

Fine lines, friend.
Fine lines.
I didn't say it was realistic, I said it was only a tad more realistic than Bond, just because Bourne is a more realistic character in terms of personality. His physical feats are irrelevent. So you're saying that he can't be an ISTP because he doesn't think it's fun to be shot at? ANYONE would eventually get worn down if he had the CIA trying to kill him for years. I'm not interested in having a huge discussion about this, I just replied because I thought you misrepresented what I said.
 
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
Top