Sign Up | Log in |

Natalie Portman MBTI

Myers Briggs type and personality details of 'Natalie Portman'
Natalie Portman MBTI type
Realm:
Reality

Category:
Television, Movie Industry and Mass Media

TOTAL MBTI VOTES: 47


ISTJ - 30
INFJ - 13
ISFJ - 3
INFP - 1

[Famous ISTJs]

Log in to vote!

TOTAL ENNEA VOTES: 10


1W2 - 6
2W1 - 2
3W4 - 1
4W3 - 1

[Famous Enneagram 1]

Log in to vote!

Old (unmoderated comments)

Proof that ISTJs can be interesting/intriguing people with success in showbiz.I meant straight and dry instead of sick.ISTJs are sick, compulsive, and harsh. She's not ISTJ.

MBTI type of Natalie Portman

.If she was an ISTJ, before you try to see some sign of Fi (and there's no clear sign of Fi in her outside of that "being yourself" shit") you should show us some sig of Te in her. And there's not.

Find out about Natalie Portman personality type

. She actually radiates Fe. She's meek, suave, considerering and ward, she has not the square, critical, judging and controling Te attitude.Information about Myers Briggs Type Indicator of Natalie Portman. For the "anti-method" thing, perhaps that mean that she is INFJ, but definetly an Fe user and NOT a Te aux.Fi and "being yourself" is definitely a cliche but as it stands there is no argument for ISFJ beyond a reverse-appeal-to-authority ("CelebrityTypes said ISTJ, therefore not ISTJ").Which of the 16 personality types is Natalie Portman?. Since Fi is indeed associated with individuality, like it or not, there has to be other, better Fe evidence to make ISFJ more likely. Also "being yourself" isn't the only Fi/Te evidence in those two quotes, she also hints at a dislike of method acting and that she cares mostly about satisfying her own personal standards. If she's an ISFJ then show me the evidence.Exactly, but she's an ISFJ not INFJ.That systematic association between "beig herself" and Fi is one of the most infectious of the typology comunity. Seriously, can't you understand that Fe users too want to be themself and not what others tell to do? Think about that before you fall into that stupid trap.Portman: "I am the anti-method actor. As soon as we finish a scene, I need to go back to being myself." Also, "I'm tough on myself in terms of the standards I want to live up to, but that's also part of my pleasure: knowing you are being your fullest self. Being your fullest self is a lot of work." Seems Fi/Te to me.Yeah my vote has been for ISFJ, and don't intend to change it. It's weird how these divides form between two completely different axes (also see Tarantino). In this case, you've got Si/Ne + Te/Fi vs. Ni/Se + Fe/Ti.I definitely think she's an Si-dom but Speed Gavroche may have a point she could be ISFJ instead."What an odd divide in the votes.." And you know who is responsible for that. CelebrityTypes of course! And wtf about "cute girls" not being T? This whole page is worthy of 1000 facepalms.'I don't know how you can qualify such a cute girl of T.' Well that's not demeaning to ISTJs at all (rolls eyes).You guys must be kidding about ISTJ. She seems to me like a F, I don't know how you can qualify such a cute girl of T.Yes, the truth should be in between. Welln she's definetly an IJ, but does not look INTJ at all. My vot goes for ISFJ.What an odd divide in the votes...Right now I'm just extremely curious where people see INFJ in her, whether they're using functions or Keirsey's method. Because I use both in different instances and she seems ISTJ to me either way.Good points all around. I still think, at the end of the day, though, it's always good to post your rationale. I always appreciate it when people have the courage to explain their opinions, whether I agree or not. It opens up the room for discussion and lets me see where they're coming from.Heck. Alot if people here have not even read Jung. Some prefer Keirsey's typology to Jung's (they are similar at surface but very different theories to fall on). People have complicated Jungian typology more than it was relevant for. The type descriptions on most sites are extremely stereotypical and try to fix a person in one very specific box. Jung never intended that. Even Jungian cognitive functions were never meant to fit each individual in an ascertainable box.Well. No one owes us any explanation. Its a voting site for a reason and people can vote for whatever they choose. I am confident she is an ISTJ (even ISFJ is more likely than INFJ) and no amount of INFJ votes will make her INFJ in my mind. But I'm sure people have something in mind when they vote INFJ, we certainly can't convince or challenge everyone. People have varied ways of looking into types. Most people have unique explanations for typing and even type descriptions. There is no standard. Look around. Read the comments. Is there any uniformity?I really would like to know why people keep voting INFJ. Makes very little sense to me and yet so many people are voting for it even in spite of all the comments explaining ISTJ. Is it wishful thinking or is there something about Portman none of the people who endorse ISTJ are aware of? An explanation would be much appreciated.Sensible, intelligent, straight forward. Not very emotionally engaging. Soft spoken yes but talks in simple clear way. Not eloquent, mediumistic way of talking like INFJs. I'd vote ISTJ. So many INFJ votes, so less INFJ evidence.Why the sudden influx of INFJ votes? She's as ISTJ as they come. INFJs are contemplative visionaries driven by their feelings; Portman is not. She is very logical and traditional. ISTJs can be as smart as INFJs but it manifests differently. See below for more ISTJ evidence.Definitely ISTJ, not INFJ. Quotes like "I loved school so much that most of my classmates considered me a dork", "I'd rather be smart than a movie star", etc. point to ISTJ or at least IS-J. She's very serious and frank, too, making ISTJ more likely than ISFJ.But lets suppose if a person's facial expression give a Fe vibe but their life, actions, sentiments and ideas are to the contrary. Wouldn't the method fail.? I'm not saying it doesn't work at all but its fairly subjective personal ability, I'm sure you are able to do that.Yeah, I don't need scientific proof to subscribe to that idea. I see it in action time and time again and it makes theoretical sense.I for one do not believe facial expression or body language is a reliable way to gauge cognitive functions. I know its fairly popular on the internet but really its not proven.Agreed! And her face is so stoic that it is hard to see the Fe...She is an Si-Dom. I don't how people keep voting INFJ.INFJ and ISTJ share NO cognitive functions whatsoever. Please, learn the functions, people.

One of the worst examples of mistyping on the internet. An introverted intuitive led by Fi and Ne; just read any of her writing. And her quick-witted whimsy in interviews is so far removed from any ISTJ-ness.

Oh you're an INFP yourself WHAT A SURPRISE

She's not intuitive at all, no abstract coming from her interviews