This thread is a quite interesting practical demonstration of value of knowing a tiny bit about Mojo Reading and demonstration of problems with topology cult (MBTI):
Lol, I just checked the Rosetta Stone of the Human Soul spreadsheet and Carrie Mulligan was read as a Nyy'xai (ENFP correlate) and Andrew Garfield was read as a Nai'xyy (INFJ correlate).Recently found this video from CelebrityTypes (which is a website I've never really trusted but still finds interesting), and it talks about the differences between Fe and Fi using an interview between Carey Mulligan (INFJ - aux Fe user) and Andrew Garfield (INFP - dom Fi user).
Here's the video:
Anyway the video, to me, seems to be portraying Fe/Fi on a really biased level. The examples they used from the videos all seemed to be backed up by stereotypes rather than actual facts. Eg, the example of them putting shoes onto the couch, I know plenty of non Fe users, myself included, who wouldn't go around putting dirty shoes all over other people's furniture. Many examples they made which was supposed to show 'Fe' is actually shown in both Fe and Fi (eg 'face-saving'). Also it kept talking about things from an Fe's point of view. You see things like 'Garfield neglected to use Fe like Mulligan' but there was nothing on how 'Mulligan neglected to use Fi' which would have been necessary to make the video fair and non-biased.
The video showed six aspects of Fe (5 using Fe and 1 neglecting Fe), and showed two aspects of Fi.
Of course in the comments there were a few people talking about how biased this video was, a lot of people bashing Fi users for being 'selfish', and also surprisingly some people bashing Fe users for being 'fake'. I don't see CelebrityTypes responding to any of these comments except one, but the original comment is now deleted for some reason.
Anyway that's enough ranting from me :laughing: I'm interested to see how other people (especially Fi and Fe users) think about this video?
Their typing and explanations are rather ridiculous. They assume that Fe and Fi exist in isolation, that someone's Fe code of conduct can't include allowing people to be themselves, that INFJs frequently being HSP won't take influence on approach to comfort vs. "social rules", that INFJs are all about "properness" - and not for example follow these just to defend themselves from social ostracism, that Te and Si won't give a tendency towards "properness", etc.
He also for some reason assumes that it's Mulligan which behaves in a socially proper way, not Garfield. Maybe Mulligans initial behaviour displayed on the video is actually bizarre and socially awkward, not proper.
Also, maybe Garfield's shifting position to that of Mulligan is actually an example of Fe use?
In the second example when "buttons are pushed" - his eyes are disengaging to the left, so he's using Nai (Ni), his worldview map power. Ni can appear intense and pissed off (distinct signal: Dissatisfaction)
When he realises he got carried away by his Ni (his source power, let's remember), he does that appeal to Mulligan thing, but I would argue that his auxilary Fe simply reminded him that he talked too much.
Of course since they don't have any real knowledge of human psyche, only theories, they ignore Garfield's warm articulation and aware mouth and Mulligan's cold articulation and unaware mouth.
Mulligan simply says what she thinks using cold Zyy (Te) articulation. Their analysis is bullshit because as an she simply agrees with what he's talking about. Also, he's asking her a direct question if he talks too much - I don't know how answering a direct question is supposed to be an indication of a function use. Another thing is that Nai'xyy and Nyy'xai are an inspiration pair, so if his code of conduct is compatible with her values are compatible they should naturally get along pretty well.
That's the problem with all these theories that exist without a way of objective verification - it's all so ambiguous and can be interpreted in so many ways that it's practically impossible to type people that way, impossible to know what functions really do, etc.
When one knows at least some physiological cues it's so easy to see what is really happening.
She's running on Si/Fi/Te, suppressing her Ne for some reason. Happens sometimes. It's sub-optimal, though because it goes against her cognitive configuration.
She's pleasant because she's resonating with Fi a lot and hosts are telling jokes and stuff. Suppressing her dominant function makes her lose initiative. Actual ISFJ like Megyn Kelly would easily out-talk her.
One problem with guessing cognitive configuration by behaviour is that just because someone uses functions a lot or not much, it doesn't make them a certain type.
At some point I somehow got a habit of using very structured and fact-based arguments. Even to the point where I often run conversations on Si/Te/Fi which tires me a lot because I use the inferior and tertiary function a lot. Also, it slows me down.
Sure, except, apparently, it's not even possible to arrive to one interpretation of what is happening in a single video.
Then the whole interpretation of what is happening in the video has to be confronted with a theory that was created without a way of objectively measuring of what is going and which functions are used at a given moment.
What did they read you as :laughing:?
I haven't actually read these people - I just check their types in the Rosetta Stone of the Human Soul.
I just look at videos and cross-reference physiological cues and situation and what they say and their mojo to see what is happening.
For example, here:
I see his eyes disengaging to the left - doing Nai drift a lot. Which means when he's talking about education, he's using Nai, not Xai which would be eyes disengaging to the right.
In his vision, all children are allowed to develop their talents and then use their talents for benefit of The People (Nai + Xyy). (physically talented girl becoming a ballerina and providing Happiness to The People by doing ballet performance)
The reality doesn't conform to the vision, which pisses him off (that's why the distinct signal of Nai is Dissatisfaction).
The problem with that video is that:
1. The author has problems interpreting social situations.
2. The author doesn't even bother to understand what is being said.
3. The author assigns his pre-conception of what people do - he doesn't even consider that Carey may be socially awkward, that Carey may be interested in what Andrew is saying, that Andrew may be considerate, etc.
I doubt anyone would even think that he's talking to long if he wouldn't considerately check if it's a problem for Carey.