Cinema, Television and Media World
Absent or broken pic
Cinema, Television and Media World
Absent or broken pic
Her look and body language is indeed of an ENTJ.
Yet more INFP votes shat out by some randoms.
One thing I just do not get is how anyone can vote for her as INFP. No INFPs are so brash and combative, and shoving Te in your face. ENxx or ESTJ make sense, the rest don't.
She does like to rile people up and have them do the hard work. ENFJ seems like a tempting vote for her but I will go with ENTJ. She is very extroverted. I doubt she even uses her Fe in a healthy manner.
She's fake as hell so she's hard to type, but I agree that I don't see any Fe in her. ENTJ makes the most sense to me, but I can get behind ENFP too.
Why is idiot not an option for vote?
Anita is surely Fi/Te.
She has to have Ti in her stack
Not so sure she's an F type. It seems like she's mainly doing everything for attention/money. She's like the left wing version of Ann Coulter
estj for lulz. I don't know the deal of her but she isn't very N I think. Seems to be the kind that would like to police others around.
I'm not saying she is 100% certain Te dominant (though Te is probably one of her rather strong function in my opinion), I'm not convinced about what type she is. But indeed I am convinced she isn't passionate about video games and she isn't authentic. My opinion on her has been made over ~2 years and I didn't keep sources and references I could redirect you to (I chose that vid in my previous message simply because it contains the older clip of her revealing she never liked games and had to research a lot on the subject in order to give her speech, something she totally denies later on (when she got famous) as she self-proclaims a long time game lover). So i'm unable to give you all sources that helped me form my opinion over the years; here's one on other 'feminists' asking her help : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWQcqabG0J8. She is not driven by passion or idealism or morals but by her position, profits and interests.
I have revised my vote to ENFP as well which makes the most sense to me now. @StreetSpirit: Could you elaborate on your reasoning. Are you saying she isn't "authentic" but a "scam/business woman" and therefore Te dominant? Can you share how you arrived at this conclusion. Possibly with further explanation and/or sources that cement your point?
She is the total opposite of "authentic". The very foundation of her public persona is based on a lie : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL0-AKOjgHQ She is not a gamer, she pretends to be. At first she didn't present herself as a gamer but quite the opposite but she realized it was playing against her so she totally changed her speech since and reinvented her childhood. She doesn't do what she does because of passion but because of interest. She is not an idealist, she is a business woman (to be polite, cause really she is a scam).
Yeah although I agreed at first with why INFP was an option from the get go, further inspection makes it less likely than ENFP. Though for ENTJ, inferior Fi would have to be explained. Remember ENFPs are the stereotypical champions of causes and actual doers with a tendency for execution. I feel personally that ENFP is somewhat more likely than ENTJ.
After boiling down all these well formed arguments, I can't really understand how ENFP has considerably less votes than ENFJ. Maybe there should really be an obligatory commenting system along with voting. You are right, Zen, there is this Te and Fi ambiguity which could be explained by her being an ENFP. Alright, so my attempt at closure is either ENTJ or ENFP. INFP seems far-fetched now.
However I agree with everyone who believes ENFJ is the least likely type for her. She is no Fe type.
I am agreement with parts of arguments for INFP as well as ENTJ. Here is my opinion. She is neither inferior in Fi nor Te. It's all about how you arrange the two in the functional stack. She isn't introverted nor a blazing extravert. So she can be either. I voted ENFP as she is both someone with an agenda as well as underlying ideals. I refuse to accept that its just a business venture for her.
Her Te is just too evolved for it to be an inferior function and I don't see her as an introvert either. Maybe her behavior may point to her being an introvert, but I think because of recent internet hate - she has to stay low. I see Te everywhere in her videos, in the way she forms her arguments,(reductionistic) in the way she probably plans everything in a step-by-step manner. Ni counts for a world-wide view of sexism starting from video-gaming and probably envisioning the future steps, since it is introverted it really isn't that obvious. Ni can appear like Si, however it is strongly linked to cause and effect relationship, which I believe Anita uses in her videos. Pretty sure she expected to see all the hate since it is the internet after all, unsure if it is exactly the degree she imagined at start. Sometimes, as an attempt to convince people, she inflates her points with Se by the use of body language, face expressions even when they do not really make sense. Many strong Ti users (INTPs and ENTPs) have already demonstrated through commentary videos loop-holes in her beliefs, and "morals". Also from a trusted source - Anita Sarkeesian "earned a master's degree in social and political thought", it paints a more or less accurate image of an ENTJ for me, who is naturally able to think like a politician/business-woman. ENxJ may enjoy casual gaming because of tertiary Se and that is exactly what she claimed she was doing, though not sure to what extent... She saw an opportunity to gain fame through the use of internet + the gaming community and she took it. A lot of feminist waves nowadays that you can just ride, if you have the seemingly good causes and arguments for it. She didn't play that many video-games and thought her scarce gameplay experience would really "help" as an evidence for becoming a video-game theoretician. Why not ENFJ? Her cognition seems to be based on the Te-Fi axis and not Fe-Ti. All that desire to stand out with Fi morals rather than be melted down with everybody, as an ENFJ would do. After all this I am inclined to say she is most likely an ENTJ in my view. If not - ENFP or INFP, nothing else really. I got a feeling that if she is after all a perceiver, she could be having a partnership with a Judger.
I really can't see her as an INFP.. She is such a manipulative person who kept bringing lies and more lies. Where people see idealism is really just a strong and non ethical business plan. From the very beginning she started lying to build a fake image of a gamer she never was. Many people defending (real) feminist causes came to her asking for help as she has good visibility and she ignored (didn't even care to respond) most of them. I don't know how to type her but I think ExxJ makes sense because of how externally controlling she is, of her environment, her image, her business plan and how she never listens, never questions herself, but keeps pushing forward like a bulldozer.
And the main reason I bring up her videos is because they're the easiest to find. I've seen her on TV and she's great at coming up with concise on-the-spot cold-logical arguments. Very decisive and black-and-white which are not how INFP would be.
Function wise, her videos aim to bring people together through verifiable facts, which seems like a lot of Te, Ni, and Se. It's not in the abstract theoretical as I'd expect from INxP, who would try to come up with an explanation true to a personal logical or moral understanding. I don't see that with her.
There's also the assumption that you seem to be working from that "Fi" is fueling her beliefs and stances, which I think is erroneous. It reminds me of the people who call her a SJW, implying that she works from a basis of illogical passion.
INFP make a topic more personal and she tends to detach herself from topics in order to get her message out in a way unseen for INFP's. Also she doesn't seem an introvert in any sense.
I don't want you change your vote or whatever. Just don't insist me on changing mine. Typology isn't serious to me, I came on this site after about a year or so. I find passionate discussion on typology futile. To me its just an interest I indulge in from time to time.
Why do you think INFPs can't assert how they feel about an issue like Anita?
I really don't find ENFP all that ridiculous. Just INFP.
I'd consider ENTJ if someone convinces me that she isnt an idealist and that all her activism is just some ambitious project for her. ENTJs have inferior Fi and so they find it hard to identify with such activism as their ideals. They can however take on such projects for a sense of achievement. I don't see her doing all this just for the sake of achieving the goal. To be honest she doesn't have a fixed goals but a general direction for improvement with multiple ideas floating which are in line with her ideals and ideals of those who identify with her. I am more convinced that she is atleast an NFP.
Reason I voted INFP is because despite how she presents herself she is a strong idealist, she identifies with her cause completely and is presenting it to the wider world in a way she feels is necessary. She isn't forcing her view at all. Look at her, she points to the flaws in the gaming community and how its harmful without a dogmatic undertone. So I see either INFP or ENFP. You find INFP ridiculous. But guess what ENTJ and especially ENFJ is more ridiculous. I can to a point understand ENTJ given how she projects herself but ENFJ? Can someone seriously see Fe dominance in her? Which btw is your original vote and its strange how 8 votes followed. Then you changed your vote to ENTJ and then ENTJ votes follow. Well people identify with arguments available on the web. I liked the argument for INFP and thus voted. You prefer ENTJ/ENFJ and thus you voted that. How about instead of patronizing, just make your case and not worry what others vote (sounding like an A**hole in the process. Thanks.
lol the INFP votes keep pouring in which is nothing short of hilarious. The only way anyone types her as INFP is if they are irrationally matching irrational stereotypes. 9 people need to get a clue.
Well I can sure see ENFJ a lot more than INFP. But yeah I watched a few of her things and seems like a lot of Te. I'm gonna stick with ENTJ.
Seems like an NTJ. I don't know how you guys see ENFJ or INFP. I am almost tempted to vote INTJ.
Haha. Yeah but its a worthwhile idea to look into even though you didn't implied it. The debate was fun nonetheless. We'll continue it at a later date.
I might be open to the idea of ETJ that bobnickmad proposed earlier. Also taking account of what you shared I can see ENFP as a likely option as well.
Oh no. I keep debates and personal seperate. I might not even condone for some of what I said here but someone has to play the devil's advocate. Rest assured I've had fair share of frustration debating with individuals all over the political spectrum. Despite identifying with Leftist thought I don't ever blindly endorse everything an ideology proposes. That's why I may appear scattered on my ideology.
Also, I'll do that (watch videos). My vote is actually on ENTJ at the moment. I find it hard to believe I'll ever believe in perceiving based on the information I've accumulated already, but I'll try to keep an open mind for it.
On the free speech, I guess we are saying the same thing essentially albeit because we had taken the role of rivals in the debate we refused to acknowledge it. Anyways it was a nice discussion which would hopefully continue
Try not to take anything personally cause it was really just a projection of my frustration with other people
Also I appreciate the honesty. I did go over the top mainly cause I'm worn out with arguing against a specific school of thought.
So here is what I'll do. I'll go through her videos and attempt to type her without preconceived ideas. How about you do the saMe and lets back and see how it worked out. Maybe I was too tunnel visioned and focused on the personality weaknesses. I'd concentrate on her aux and tertiary functions and see what makes sense.
The whole debate of free speech is that you accept the social change that free speech brings about, as long as it isn't putting people into some kind of imminent danger. If it changes the market forces such that video game manufacturers are economically pressured to stop making games with a certain ideology, then you have to accept that. Because otherwise, If you're going to arbitrarily protect gaming corporations from the results of free speech, that would cross into authoritarian/fascist anti-free speech territory, in that the voice of the people is being suppressed to protect the nation's economic interests.
I must grudgingly confess that you did get the better of me in some aspects of the discussion (minus the personal)
I think thats fair and liberal in essence. I abhor authority of all sorts.
Also refrain from personal jabs. I have at no point said that Anita should be stopped. I am all for equal right to free speech, not free action. Anita can't decide what the gaming content should be. She can argue against it with all her resources. Any attempt to influence authority and institutions to make way for one's opinion is no longer free speech but use of authority. What Anita should do is create video games that suit her world view and let the people in general decide what they do or don't want to play. As long as its purely educational its all good.
:) The funny thing is that in the last exchange, you were arguing for her being more of a "J" and I was arguing for her being more of a "P"
Anyhow. I can see yout point more clearly now.
But... I do not believe they do not make up a majority of Anita's followers as you claimed!
Yes, a certain section of people want to ban games all together. They are the authoritarian lunatic fringe, and they exist on both the left and the right, and in between.
Of course we don't see eye to eye because you're putting forth an ideology which is hypocrisy in its most distilled form. A lot of people say things we don't want them to say, but you can't claim to be for free speech and then arbitrarily decide to draw the line on free speech, putting on the wrong side of the line people who are advocating completely peaceful, educational approaches to advocate their cause. If someone used persuasion through speech to turn liberals into peaceful right-wingers, any true supporter of free speech while not satisfied with the result, would not want to ban them from persuasion.
So you don't believe that a certain section of people want to "ban" certain games all together?
Ofcourse if her free speech manages to satisfy the gaming community and the willingly change for the bette . Its all good. My objection is imposition of regulations on the gaming community when they wouldn't want any. I don't know why its so hard to fathom?
Free speech means free speech. Not attempts to choke others. I guess we don't see eye to eye on the whole matter. Likewise even though extreme right wing should be allowed to have and voice their opinion. They shouldn't be allowed to use power and institutions to crush liberals. I hope you see my point!
So when her use of free speech leads to results which you disagree with, you oppose it? And now you're talking about "most of the people on (her) bandwagon?" and speaking for their opinion which apparently includes banning games altogether? I guess I learn a new fact every day.
I have no problem with her position on the matter. I have problems with the solutions that may come as a result. A regulated gaming industry. Not cool! Instead there should be content which neutralizes the content she is campaigning against.
Free speech is free for all.! Most people on Anita's bandwagon want to ban such games all together which is not okay in a liberal society. She intends to reform the gaming world, effectively attempting and lobbying to impose regulations on gaming content. She isn't just campaigning for realistic portrayals of women. I would like her to rather campaign for making games with no objectification to counter those who do objectify.
Well thanks for acknowledging the mistake but you're still strawmanning her position with your fact/myth thing. Also, how can one claim to be for free speech, while at the same time opposing people exercising their free speech by dissuading others from making and buying certain games?
Ah okay now I see what you mean. And thanks for correcting the mistake. However she did oppose making of games that sexually objectify women. She was very different on Colbert's report though and exaggerated thr extent of perceived sexism in video games. Fact: some games have sexist themes, Myth: Majority of gaming world is programmed to be sexist. Her take is narrow on many instances and she refuses to see evidence to the contrary.
They are insignificant to HER. They have nothing to do with what she's trying to accomplish, so they are best left ignored. You are getting hilarious at this point "no one should have the right to censure... what video games content is" yet you claim that Anita is the one standing in the way of free speech? Am I reading this correctly? Did you mean "censor"? From what I'm reading, she's not even for censorship. "She told Colbert that video games often portray women in a manner which "reinforces the cultural myth that women are sexual objects" and that her goal is not to censor video games, but to raise awareness of how women can be portrayed in more realistic, less stereotypical ways"
Insignificant ants? Tsk tsk. So you don't believe in the sanctity of free speech and rights on individuals to have opinions. Personally I identify with the feminist agenda but more so on my priority list is absolute right of free speech. You are saying that thousands and thousands of gamers are insignificant ants just because they have reservations about Anita's worldview? How regressive is that! It's how it should be. Anita has all the right in yhe world to have her opinions and even preach them but so should everyone else. No one should have the right to censure and approve what video games content is. If a videogame has misogynistic content, community at large has the right to ostracize the developer and refuse to play it as it is their right to protest and reject. That's my only opposition of Anita. I believe educating younger generation to abhor discrimination is a better way around it than attempting to ban. This would be my last post on personal political ideology.
Well. Since you've taken that position, I suppose there isn't much room for any further discussion between us. Since there are no holy cows in my world, I'd beg to differ obviously. From now on I'll keep the discussion purely related to typology and if you add a good argument I'd be glad to indulge.
I got exactly what you said, but I still stand by what I said. Her reluctance to respond to a bunch of insignificant ants actually has to do with her role which she has been in since day 1. And yes they are totally insignificant as it pertains to what she's done and continues to do. She rallies the base.
To clear my prior comment which I think you misunderstood. I didn't mean INFPs are intellectually immature. No No No. Far from it. I'm just saying "an" intellectually immature INFP's inferior Te would appear to shun counter arguments. You can visit any Typology site and can confirm that this is indeed true. Now that I've examined your position, it might be true that Anita's reluctance to response may actually be due to the sheer volume of opposition and thus I can see how she is an ENFP and not an INFP.
Ad hominem! And no you shouldn't UAE emotions in an argument. I don't have much stake in the whole gamergate saga. For argument sake I'm playing the devil's advocate. Seems like its not a good recipe for reputation if I oppose Anita because I'll be put into a Wife beater, extreme right wing, neo Nazi camp. Save me the drama and don't get personal. On topic your argument might hold weight to an extent but still wouldn't undermine my position on INFP. Afterall an INFP would be more attached to their ideal than an ENJ would. Hopefully we can discuss the case without ad hominem, projections and personal remarks.
Sorry didnt see your last comment before the below one
Ha, that last comment must mean your "Te" is inferior and you are intellectually immature. At least check your reflection before you call the kettle black. Seriously, you're drawing extremely rash conclusions from behavior which doesn't show much of anything. I get the feeling that you want her to act in a way that is conducive to your ideology winning out, and because she's not bending to the wishes of essentially a colony of little ants, that somehow is indicative of some personality flaw. No, it's really just indicative of someone who isn't about to get derailed by a bunch of people who want to see her fail.
Okay. I see what you mean but again this doesn't negate INFP nor makes case for ENJ. Let's put this discussion on a hold here and get back to it when we can break the deadlock instead of reiterations.
Sociologically speaking, Anita is playing the role of choir preacher. I don't mean it in a derogatory manner. She has done this from day 1. She speaks to feminists to get them to see what is in video games. Even the name of her channel is "Feminist Frequency". She is not appealing to non-feminists. She is speaking for people who already are going to be open to watching videos about feminism in video games. I've also seen her on progressive TV channels. I bet she's not going on Fox News. She is gathering *certain* people together and directing them toward a cause. She does a very good job at it, hence her popularity and the subsequent hostility directed at her. I find it funny that you say she could do a better job at whatever she's doing when she has become *the* leading voice on misogynism in video games and a majority of the interested people at least know some of what she wants them to know.
Geez! I suppose your mind is set. And obviously you again failed to read my post. I am not talking about responding to anonymous hate mails. But legitimate well structured arguments by "individuals". She shunNed any form of debate altogether effectively vilifying everyone opposing her views. No thats not how all INFPs are just like not all ENFJs are Goebbel or all ENTJs Stalin or Genghis Khan. You're unnecessarily putting words in my mouth possibly to annoy me and clear through my actual argument. Inferior Te, especially in a not so intellectually mature INFP (read the specificity here!) would show up like this where a person with strong opinions doesn't engage or entertain opposing views and keeps their opinion in face of evidence to the contrary. That's not exactly a bad thing. Your opponent can be intellectually superior to you despite being wrong "morally"
lol, yeah video games don't influence people at all *eyeroll* I'm not a "fan" of Anita. I have my own opinions which I will continue to keep to myself here. However, you are setting the goalposts so wide, so that taking a common sense approach to a situation makes one an "Fi-dom", so that the vast majority of people will get typed as Introvert + NFP by Impeccable Typing System simply by being in her situation. The nature of her position is *clearly* relevant because the basis of your argument rests in how she responds to her "opponents", and how supposedly it is an INFP way to handle it and not an ENxJ way to handle it. Of course, that's in the face of the *obvious* extrovert traits that she exhibits in her loud personality which nobody is going to try to deny. So you're laser focusing on one aspect of her interactions but yet completely missing the context. Yes, "gamers" are not some monolithic universally hateful group, but so what? Why doesn't President Obama respond to "Anonymous" or "Occupy Wall Street"? He must be an INFP! Even OWS was bound more ideologically than gamers and would at least be able to produce some spokesperson. But seriously, ask yourself that question and then apply it to the context of the mess Anita find's herself in the middle of, and maybe you'll see that your argument has as many holes as a boat of swiss cheese.
When did I say she is on a web forum? I said we can discuss non-typology subjects on a different forum.
Sure generalize the whole gaming community. There are many cool minded legitimate opponents of hers but like you she too paints them all with the same brush. Her concerns are real, yes, but she has mishandled the case and vilified a huge populous just because she doesn't see eye to eye with them. Unfortunately I'm not a big fan of hers as supposedly you are. I also am not a huge fan of political correctness and feel that opinions should be heard regardless of how others "feel". She has failed to acknowledge all the reasonable rebuttals to her complaints and therefore not ab intellectual giant in my opinion as others might like to portray but thats a discussion for another place. Its strange that opposing Anita's position would make you a misogynist when you clearly aren't. So in crux, here is my political opinion, in general her views are true atleast to an extent but no I don't believe that videogames encourage misogyny. Back to typology, alot of ENJs have fought through hateful opposition more effectively since that's their strength.
You're talking about her as if she's on a web forum or something. Social media is her specialty and she manages it well. When your opponent is just a nebulous ball of hate, how do you "confront" it anyway?
Scotty you might not have noticed but I never suggested that views = personality. I suggested quite a lot on how she manages her views, how ahe presents them and how she defends them. Alot of political leaders who are EN_J do confront their opponents directly to give them a fair chance or atleast try to engage them. We can discuss the merits of her activism on a political forum somewhere so lets keep this place strictly MBTI related. So far I'm pretty sure there is Fi more than Fe for her even though apparently speaks for the "collective" and twist it anyway you like but an ENJ's strength lies in dealing with conflict, Anita's lack this strength as shown repeatedly.
Anyone can have her views, but views =/= personality. And as I mentioned before, if you're a leader of a political movement it's best not to confront opposing views directly. Common sense 101. If anything P types aren't quite as vigilant and may be tempted to take the bait. But yeah she likes to speak more in a collective sense which would indicate ENxJ. Also, she's not "victimizing" herself. She is a legitimate victim.
An E_TJ shying away from direct defence of their opinion is more unlikely that an INFP championing for her cause.
Okay, not to piss off any INFPs here but isn't it an INFP weakness to hold their opinions when evidence to the contrary is presented? Atleast in ones who aren't very mature intellectually? Aren't some on Anita's accusations unfounded and debunked but she doesn't give way and still holds the same position? Don't INFPs refrain to engage in a sort-of hostile debate and argue from a distance, effectively away from straight on confrontation. I think you'd agree yes.
I'll look into her more and then come back to you. At this point we seem to be on very different tangents and look at her through different lenses.
On the contrary I'm all for using negative aspects of personality to identify the type, I was just annoyed with the selective treatment. Also saying that an INFP wouldn't identify with the group she is part of is rather odd. There would be plenty of cases where NFPs joined together to form a group. Take Che, Castro and many more NFP "comrades" sharing similar values but still very Fi and vilifying opposition. Fe obviously are more noticeably capable of that. Also I agree with the general position of your argument but given the nature of Jungian typology where there can be no effective falsification, you can argue one way or another for any I/E, N/S, F/T, P/J type. That would kill the reason to debate more effectively, don't you think?
If you are right that her "forceful" persona infact holds sone ground I can see ENFP (Te tertiary) or a very atypical ENTJ. ENFJ's Fe might be manipulative but it also engages etc. but Anita is nothing like that.
My take on E/I isn't behavioral. She comes across as lead Fi to me.
By negative I don't mean bad things but rather weaknesses. Anita's loud personality comes across as faux to me, shielding her more vulnerable and debate avoiding INFP self.
What did I say negative about her and ENFJ? The only thing I said was that she's got a loud personality which would make her an extrovert and definitely not an INFP.
Also since I like to call it out when I see something, I'd appreciate if you inform me if something annoyed you so I don't bring it up again in the discussion.
Apologies if it comes across like that. Didn't intend to offend you. However on a few occasions discussing negative sides of a personality also helps in identification. Somehow you're okay associating negative aspects of ENFJs with her. And no I personally have no stakes or interest in her activism. But she sparked my interest.
I get the impression that you're trying to type what you hate about her rather than who she is. I stopped at "SJW".
@scotty: went through the thread, seems like a good case was made for NFP but people can't accept negative traits of Fi but will harp about how bad Fe can be. I see no Fe in her whatsoever and the people arguing ENTJ can't explain her so much un-ENTJness. I think she is trying to be tough but since her Te is inferior she gets overwhelmed very easily and plays the martyr card regularly.
INJs inferior Se is their Achilles heel. They don't despise it rather have a secret admiration for it. Generally I_FPs and E_FJs would abhor violence like this. But taking other things in account I tilt more towards I_FP and specifically INFP for Anita.
Also both Fe and Fi can push for their agenda. INFPs are especially sure of what right and wrong is and if they take on activism they can come across as eextremely stubborn and confrontational. Although they would always shy away from a face to face debate.
For me its either INFP or ENFP. Not ENFJ and definitely not NTJ os any sort.
For me its either INFP or ENFP. Not ENFJ and definitely not NTJ os any sort.
Regarding E/I. Since it's MBTi derived from Jung's take on I/E. I can't see her as a Ne Dom. Because she clearly is a Te inferior and Fi Dom for sure. A bit atypical but still. In pure behavioral sense she appears ambivalent on I/E spe
Again you are conveniently ignoring that no matter how much you'd want to push your agenda, an ENFJ (because her strength would be Fe) would be able to better understand and accomodate opposing views. Unless you want an ENFJ's strength to their weakness in which case you're biased against ENFJs. An ENFJ, no matter how big a villain, would form a holistic, mutually acceptable solution and influence opinion rather than going on one way tirades on how bad an idea is without even attempting to engage in a dialogue, thats how a bad Fi-Dom SJW would be. She clearly has no notion of what the gaming community thinks and sees her personal morals as the final truth. I think her "agenda driven" persona is rather reluctant and backed by others as well, I agree. I don't agree that she isn't sincere to her value system. She is!
If you're going to vote as an NFP, why introverted? She is absolutely clearly not an introvert in any way, even more clear than her J-ness. Being hostile to Se and Se-traits is something more that an Ni-dom would do I think. I don't know much about this McIntosh guy but are you sure a) he does Sarkeesian's work, and b) he's not an INFJ?
It's her perception that's rigid. Those who extrovert judging are more judgy. There's different kind of rigidity. An FP type is more rigid on what's right/wrong but an FJ is more rigid on the way the world should be. Her judging bends to fit her interpretation of how she thinks things shuold be, which is Je + Ni. ENxJ.
Also Ni is a perceiving function which can evolve and change. Fi is more rigid and judgy as you put it.
An ENTJ would be as dauntless in debates as they come. Anita has completely shut off any sort of argument against her values which points not to Te-Dom but to inferior Te. I think her "strategy driven" persona is faux.
An ENTJ would be as dauntless in debates as they come. Anita has completely shut off any sort of argument against her values which points not to Te-Dom but to inferior Te. I think her "strategy driven" persona is faux.
No it's not Ni but clearly Fi. She is concerned with how oppressive her opponents are, a common thread amongst Fi-type crusaders. They argue their weakness, opponent's bad will and a reluctance to debate logically. They also concern themselves with a personal moral standard taking no account of what others think. The most evilest ENFJ wouldn't be like that. Her viewpoint is a niche like an NFPs would be and not a large scale public struggle which would interest an ENFJ. So yes she is very likely an INFP. I can understand why you'd refuse to believe how an NFP would ever do that.
Her online interaction style is almost definitely a strategy rather than a personality, which is why I still think ENTJ is a possibility.
J types get stuck in their "Ni" or whatever you want to call it more than P types. Also when you have to deal with the amount of hate thrown her way it tends to shape just how patient you are with the so-called public. She probably feels the most effective way of dealing with the various haters is to not lower herself to debate with them - a common political move which makes it a bad way to judge her personality. Read this post - this guy has it down. http://personalitycafe.com/guess-type/178490-anita-sarkeesian-post13495978.html#post13495978
And no, not all INFPs are angels by default. Just like other cognitive functions have negative attributes so does Fi. A bad Fi-Dom will judge the world solely through their own narrow value system and not attempt to understand opposing viewpoint.
Also. How is she an INTJ? Like seriously how?
I believe reluctance to debate also points to inferior Te.
She also comes across as a unhealthy NFP martyr type, her opponents are out to get her. She won't engage them but they are wrong from the get go. Yes that's a load of Fi-Dom gone wrong there!
She comes across as a J type like any crusader would be but she just avoids discussion and debate. An ENFJ would engage public whereas Anita just puts forward her thoughts as the final word and any one disagreeing a big bad wolf. A case of bad Fi type.
An ENFJ would cater a larger viewpoint whereas she is stuck in her own views and her own ways unconcerned with what others think. A case of personal moralist, a bad NFP.
She is like the most obvious judgey judger J-type ever.
INFP vote? Please defend yourself!
Manipulative, liar, more concerned about her own interests than what she pretends to be fighting for, ewwww. Won't type her, would feel like insulting people of the same type :p
How does anyone see such a loud personality as an introvert?
She's either ENFJ or ENTJ I think. I voted F but not sure.
Voted INTJ because she has a definite end goal but uses power over others as an easy instrument.