Sign Up | Log in |

Quentin Tarantino MBTI

Myers Briggs type and personality details of 'Quentin Tarantino'
Quentin Tarantino MBTI type
Realm:


Category:
Acting and Movie Industry

TOTAL MBTI VOTES: 53


ESFP - 26
ENFP - 12
ENTP - 11
ESTP - 3
INTP - 1

[Famous ESFPs]

Log in to vote!

TOTAL ENNEA VOTES: 20


7W8 - 14
7W6 - 4
8W7 - 2

[Famous Enneagram 7]

Log in to vote!

Old (unmoderated comments)

Some Ne and also Fi quotes from him: "My plan is to have a theatre in some small town or something and I'll be manager. Ill be the crazy old movie guy." (typical Ne-Fi, "I'd love to do that, I would got here, I could try this", but not exactly doing it), "The good ideas will survive", "I loved history because to me, history was like watching a movie.", "If you just love movies enough, you can make a good one.

MBTI type of Quentin Tarantino

." (idealism). "I'm a big collector of vinyl - I have a record room in my house - and I've always had a huge soundtrack album collection.

Find out about Quentin Tarantino personality type

. So what I do, as I'm writing a movie, is go through all those songs, trying to find good songs for fights, or good pieces of music to layer into the film.", "I don't believe in elitism.Information about Myers Briggs Type Indicator of Quentin Tarantino. I don't think the audience is this dumb person lower than me. I am the audience.Which of the 16 personality types is Quentin Tarantino?." (anti-NT one). "My movies are painfully personal, but I'm never trying to let you know how personal they are. It's my job to make it be personal, and also to disguise that so only I or the people who know me know how personal it is. 'Kill Bill' is a very personal movie." (expressing Fi through Ne, nothing that ENTP could say), "I come from a mixed family, where my mother is art house cinema and my father is B-movie genre cinema. They're estranged, and I've been trying to bring them together for all of my career to one degree or another." (being personal again), "There is such a thing as my kind of actor, and how well they pull off my dialogue is a very, very important part of it." (Fi), "I always do an all-night horror marathon on Saturdays where we start at seven and go until five in the morning." (watching movies on Saturday night, not an ESxP thing to do), "I want to have the fun of doing anime and I love anime, but I can't do storyboards because I can't really draw and that's what they live and die on." (lack of Se skills), "Movies are not about the weekend that they're released, and in the grand scheme of things, that's probably the most unimportant time of a film's life." (N-like bigger picture preference), "I've always thought my soundtracks do pretty good, because they're basically professional equivalents of a mix tape I'd make for you at home." (obvious Fi is obvious), "When I'm writing something, I try not to get analytical about it as I'm doing it, as I'm writing it." (anti-Ti), "I actually think one of my strengths is my storytelling." (what xNFP is most likely to say), "I just grew up watching a lot of movies. I'm attracted to this genre and that genre, this type of story, and that type of story. As I watch movies I make some version of it in my head that isn't quite what I'm seeing - taking the things I like and mixing them with stuff I've never seen before." (Fi in Ne), "I am a genre lover - everything from spaghetti western to samurai movie." (typical ENFP enthusiasm for every possible art genre or concept or idea), "If I wasn't a film-maker, I'd be a film critic. It's the only thing I'd be qualified to do." (not a normal occupation for sensors), "Something stopped me in school a little bit. Anything that I'm not interested in, I can't even feign interest." (typical quote for highly passionate types like xNFP).You can easily see dominant Ne in his writing, mostly because of "what if" way of creating and postmodern, satirical, over the top, unrealistic nature of Ne. Even if there are seemingly tons of style over substance moments in his movies, they're almost always some kind of homage to obscure B-movies only he has watched or there is some ironic overtone. Tarantino plays predominantly with crazy ideas and possibilites, not with "look at that awesome explosion" approach just for sake of it. Taken as they are, his aesthetics are tasteless, until you get why he put them there. Although him being a 7w8 makes him actually set those unrealistic stories in the very realistic settings, he basically loves the IDEA of fancy adventures and weird coincidences, but he prefers to manifest this love theoretically, by art, and not really by pursuing that kind of life himself. I mean, he's very energetic, but mentally energetic, not exactly kinesthetically (imagine Tarantino seriously dancing or surfing or playing football like every ESFP 7w8 would like to do, it doesn't make much sense, because he would rather explore something interesting, or rather, everything interesting, that stimulates his mind, more than his body). Examples of Ne manifesting in 7w8: What if I mess up chronological order and throw 1000 allusions to popculture into one movie that looks like it is mostly about cheesburgers and bunch of criminal weirdos? What if Hitler was burned in the cinema and Bear-Jews could beat Nazis with baseball bats? What if a black slave became badass vigilante? What if I mix samurai, spaghetti western, anime, kung fu and giallo and many others conventions into one film that has cool eastern vibe? etc.Se aesthetics to the max, good hand in what works with what, and Se harshness and straightforwardness, mixed with Te. I wasn't sure about Fi for a while, but I've heard him reacting to what he thought was private and nobody's business, and that was suck Fi self-defensiveness that it's unreal. He also didn't want to verbalize his opinions, saying they are clear from the movies he makes, and people aren't entitled to hearing him say it.Even his characters can't shut the fuck up!I just found a Pulp Fiction CD at the supermarket for U$1.50 - Not kidding you.Once again, Tarantino is somebody that whose "bookends" I'm certain of (ExxP), but it's the middle bits that tend to confuse me about him. He could easily be ENFP, ENTP, ESFP, or ESTP, honestly. It's like he kind of fluctuates between all of them at different times.He spent his entire youth watching movies, exploring stuff. And this is Ne. ESFP would bore himself to death. "[Tarantino] was such a movie buff. He had so much knowledge of films that he would try to get people to watch really cool movies."Se and Ne can be hard to distinguish. He has an agressiveness, subjective way of evaluating films (saying Michael Mann is shit and all), don't think much about what it does, just cares about the aesthetics, so how is it Ne over Se? He can't shut up, right, but ESFP can be just as talkative (especially since he says lot of bullshit). Seeing how shallow his films have become, I can only see him as ESFP (7w8 so/sx too). Inferior Ni makes a lot of sense, inferior Si doesn't.ENFP, 7w8 so/sx. Very clearly Ne-dominant and uses Fi/Te rather than Ti/Fe.*ENFPs don't filter so Tarantino put the music wherever he wanted"in fact Morricone and Tarantino seem to not get along at all" Talking too much crap again!! Tarantino always has been a Morricone fan. Always. The article you posted is from the point of view of Morricone. ENFPs don't filter so he put the music wherever Tarantino wanted. No surprises there. I'd also be pissed off. "Too much blood" said the article then Morricone is INFP. And The Hateful Eight has Morricone music again. More than a butterfly you are a cocoon.Ts can definitely be messy and unable to shut up imo. That's what the E and P stands for! There is nothing stopping S types from being film buffs and nerds either. I knew plenty of S and E nerds, etc. growing up - like the ISTP skinny, quiet kid who plays shooters all day and collect Hong Kong action movies and gets worked up over swords and throwing stars. Didn't you know somebody like that? >.< I feel like Tarantino is basically the extroverted version of that. Finally liking the music of any type is not in itself good evidence for being any kind of type imo. And in fact Morricone and Tarantino seem to not get along at all http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/legendary-composer-ennio-morricone-says-he-never-wants/298143 (Though they since worked together again. It seems like they have a common respect for each other now that Morricone has seen how much people love Tarantino.)He's too messy to be a T. And too much of a film buff and nerdy to be an S. He also loves NF Morricone. Ne-dom for sure since he can't shut up. ENFP.At various points, I have thought ENFP, ENTP, ESTP and ESFP. I think the correct answer is ESTP though. First Se > Ne: His movies are not really that imaginative. I think a big part of his appeal is that he is so literal. For example where most just see mafia henchman, he is going to follow them off work and let them talk about hamburgers. And when they are talking about hamburgers he makes them go into all these ridiculously mundane details about it (Se+Ti), which is what makes it so funny, exciting and original, especially when it's often being used to suspend terrible violence. The one time he adapted a novel he loved, Jackie Brown, it was just a very straightforward, hard-boiled crime thriller. I think the Ne-like wackiness is just a second consequence of him being so unusually literal (Se). As for ESTP > ESFP: He is very warm in person, but it's in an overflowing, very intense way which I think is more of a Fe-ish thing. The older he gets, the more his movies are also influenced by culture, community, etc. and a strange sense of social responsibility, like when he makes a revenge movie about an escaped slave or Jews during World War II. Tarantino also seems to have a bit of a temper and will instantly, like an on/off button, turn off all warmth the moment someone is "messing" with him. Note also my earlier claim that what is actually the Tarantino-esque is to get absurdly technical and literal about movie characters (Se+Ti).And Quentin is defo an ENFP :)@Scotty: if I compare him with the ESFPs I know, I find them pretty similars. He actually remind me some ESTPs I know. I see the similar Se energy and focus.Making a movie takes months, often years of effort. Most filmmakers would start with the actual plot when making a movie; even Ni-doms like Nolan, Aronofsky, and Fincher do. But over the course of months and/or years, a N type would eventually start thinking about the abstract meaning because that's how N works. I'm sure this goes for you too if you actually made a film all the way through. But S types will remain focused on the actual, concrete plot throughout the whole duration. I actually know an ESFP who reminds me a whole lot of Tarantino—he's funny, street smart, rebellious, creative, and intelligent but not introspective or intellectual. ENFPs I know are a lot more introspective. But of course that's anecdotal. If someone is extremely intelligent but not at all introspective, it's likely that he/she is a S type and no, I don't believe most filmmakers and composers are N types—in fact, the proportions are probably somewhat equal. Filmmaking and music aren't especially N-style fields and have aspects about them that both types would excel at more than the other.Look at every ESFP you know in real life and every fictional ESFP and then compare them to Tarantino. You'll notice something doesn't add up.The thing is - *almost* all film directors and composers do happen to be N. You're way overthinking things to try to justify QT as an Se-dom. Based on everything you've been saying I'd be an S type - I'd make movies to be experienced in a direct sense as well, focusing on aesthetic for aesthetic reasons, and not want to answer questions dealing with abstractions. Tarantino just happens to be a director who isn't a pretentious douchenozzle. That doesn't make him an S. Extroverted N types tend to be very down to earth compared to their introverted counterparts too. Well I guess 90% of voters and CT-drones can take solace in that I am 1 of 10 people who believe he is an ENFP.On Ne and faux-Se: that’s a good point. But as I said before, Ne has an introspective quality to it that mitigates the raw, unfiltered perception—as you say, it’s a more “indirect” form of sensing—and it’s very apparent that Tarantino himself has none of that. He’s focused purely on the aesthetic itself for purely aesthetic reasons. About as direct as you can get. Just like Bay’s bombastic aesthetic, actually—but Tarantino’s extremely intelligent so his unconscious Ni creeps into his filmmaking and makes the Se look like faux-Ne.On typism: You can’t assume all scientists are NT or all film directors or composers are N. But I agree that it’s possible to overcorrect for that, though, and IMHO e.g. Celebrity Types corrects for that a bit too much, but with Tarantino they’re spot-on. Though there are more imaginative N types since imagination is (on a macro level) a facet of N, it’s not enough to distinguish between types on that alone. Creativity transcends type on an individual level—there are even creative SJs and thus you need to look at *how* the person’s creative to decide what type they are.On general N vs. S differences: You say “Tarantino perceives the world in an intuitive way and tries to replicate the idiosyncrasies in his movies.” I say you’re mixing up intuition with creativity. S types, especially SPs, can be very creative too and plus, Tarantino’s highly intelligent so he’s bound to perceive the world in an insightful manner. Also, many of his idiosyncrasies are Fi-based rather than Pe-based. “Literal and concrete” isn’t S or N a priori but if an in-depth interview discussing a filmmaker’s writing process remains literal and concrete throughout its entire length then the interviewee's probably an S type. Remember, the N aspect of filmmaking is the writing and conceptualizing while the S aspect of filmmaking is the actual production. If a filmmaker does the N-aspect in an S-manner, he’s probably an S himself.Sorry, let me clarify: of course a N filmmaker could begin with an idea that’s purely literal and focus on the tangible actual plot when writing the screenplay. But writing the screenplay is a multi-week process in which the differences between a N writer and an S writer would become apparent. Se and Ne are both expansive, curious, and spontaneous but Se remains in the here and now and focuses directly on the actual and the tangible while Ne is more introspective and multifaceted, connecting the dots and perceiving patterns beyond the actual. A Ne type might focus on the actual, tangible plot when writing the script, but the *manner* in which he does would inevitably lead to an understanding of the abstract associations and meanings that the plot conjures up simply because that’s how Ne works. A Se type who focuses on the actual, tangible plot when writing wouldn’t have any cognitive reason to form associations about the abstract meaning. The same goes for aesthetics—a Ne type would *eventually* realize their chosen aesthetic’s abstract implications even if they initially decide to create the aesthetic “just for the heck of it,” while a Se type wouldn’t have a cognitive reason to and would remain focused purely on the aesthetic itself. Tarantino’s a writer-director so with every film he makes he has at least two separate multi-month-long chances to think about its abstract meaning. He doesn’t. When people ask him about abstract, introspective elements, he either barely answers, dodges the question, or answers with Fi. But when people ask him about literal, concrete elements he seems right at home and gives much more nuanced answers. That implies his dominant perceiving function is Se, not Ne.I hate movies that are hard to understand. If I made a movie I'd focus first and foremost on the tangible actual plot. I'm not an S type. The thing about bringing up Michael Bay was just to show how what Se at its extreme looks like. Ne vs Se is a whole different dimension than realism vs symbolism. Tarantino perceives the world in an intuitive way and tries to replicate the idiosyncrasies in his movies but in creative ways. "Literal and concrete" is not S or N. Different intuitives have different preferences and inspirations. But that's not to say that Tarantino, Lynch, and Kubrick are not all N types. There seems to be this pretense of opposing "typism". Such as all famous scientists being NT, or all film directors or composers being N. So that the moment that any creative person says something that isn't about something concrete, all of a sudden they are an S. It doesn't work like that. Ne-doms often exhibit what looks like Se because they prefer extroverted perceiving so much and Ne isn't necessarily anti-sensing - it's just a more indirect form of it.Tarantino ESFP is a lot more reasonable than you give it credit for. Michael Bay's a bad comparison because he's so Se that his other functions are subdued as a result. You can't expect all ESFPs to be like that; that's like saying "that person's less Ni than Plato, so therefore he's an ISFJ." You can see Se in Tarantino's work (and Bay's) in that he plays with a very distinct and visually striking aesthetic "just because." I don't type him S because he based characters off of real people but because he's focused on the actual plot/aesthetic but not the themes/ideas it represents. He dislikes analysis and conceptualizing, doesn't like movies that are hard to understand, etc. Read this interview on his writing process: http://creativescreenwriting.com/method-writing-interview-with-quentin-tarantino/ —everything he says here reeks of S, not N, down to his explanations which are all very literal and concrete.Tarantino as an S-type has to be one of the most mindbogglingly ridiculous typings I've seen on here that happen to have a lot of votes. The idea of basing characters off of real people isn't anti-intuitive. NF's strongly value authenticity, mainly due to their Fi. He incorporates those character traits into his movies extremely intuitively. Compare to someone like Michael Bay, who is Se extreme.ESFP vs ENTP? No. He is an ENFP.Well, I couldn't decide on which E__P to call him, so I went quote-hunting and sifted through thirty or so of his quotes. Here are the ones that led me to believe he is ESFP. Feeler Quotes: "You don't have to know how to make a movie. If you truly love cinema with all your heart and with enough passion, you can't help but make a good movie," and "If you just love movies enough, you can make a good one." So, knowledge is less important than passion...find me an ENTP who would agree with that sentiment. Sensor Quotes: "That's part of my talent, really - putting the way people really speak into the things I write. My only obligation is to my characters. And they came from where I have been." According to what he said, he draws information not from creativity but from real-world experience. He also said "As a viewer, the minute I start getting confused, I check out of the movie. Emotionally, I'm severed." In other words, intellectual depth is a turnoff to him."Everything you're using to justify your ESFP typing - it's just his 'well developed inferior functions' I could just as easily say for my ENTP typing. He just happens to have a highly developed Se or Si or whatever." -- ENTPs use Ne/Si. There'd be very little evidence of Se at all. A very intelligent ENTP may have highly developed Si but you can't argue ENTP with highly developed Se. "That's why you cannot type based on functions. It's ridiculous. We've been over this. Remember how I demonstrated how you could pseudoscientifically type George Carlin as an ISTJ using that method?" -- I do, but remember I also said it wasn't nearly as convincing as an ENFP/ENTP argument? To clarify my approach to typology, I use both the letters and the functions. That way I avoid making odd claims like Bob Dylan as an S or Kanye West as an ISFJ (or Carlin as ISTJ) without abandoning the functions (which after all are what the MBTI is based on). The ultimate goal is to ascertain the functions, but if they're not clear (as is almost always the case with fictional characters, but much less often with real people) I fall back on the more verifiable but less definitive letters until the functions do become clear. However I don't believe Tarantino has a clear NT preference. Not at all actually. In fact I have given plenty of evidence to the contrary. Then on top of that I see his functions as Se-Fi-Te-Ni, or ESFP. It all fits. I type him ESFP. I'm willing to change my opinion if you prove me wrong but you have not yet done so. "That's exactly the same kind of argument you are using. You can BS about functions to argue anybody is any type." -- See above. "It does not work. Why? Because even if there was anything at all to cognitive functions, they could only possibly be useful at an individual, personal level. The idea that the 'ultimate goal' is to 'ascertain' them is ridiculous because it is literally impossible unless you are Professor Xavier." -- Study MBTI theory and then tell me if you still stand by that claim. "Behavior is literally the only thing you can try to type someone else based on. That's why the test is done the way it is: MBTI was made to practically convert Jung's ideas for measurement in the real world. That's where the four letters come from. The idea that you can "see" someone's functions, least of all someone famous you do not know, is absurd." -- But you said the MBTI was pseudoscience earlier in this thread. How can you even believe this? Also see Jungian's comments."Well see, Quentin Tarantino didn't say that either. Funny how you ignored the part about how you completely took that quote out of context." -- No, I gave several pieces of evidence that point toward that. They don't all explicitly state it but all hint at that being true, especially when read all at once. "My point was that David Lynch clearly plays with imagery just for the hell of it too. He has been known to start without a script and call in random objects to throw in a scene or make stylistic changes in the middle of production. His goal is to create an aesthetic, especially in a film like Eraserhead." -- You misunderstand. I didn't say N types can't create aesthetics, but Lynch's surrealist aesthetic in Eraserhead is a key THEMATIC choice, while Tarantino's aesthetic violence really is just for the heck of it. "He is still definitely an N, but my point was that the idea that a focus on aesthetics WHILE CRAFTING A VISUAL ART must exclude N is at least as ridiculous as the idea that high intelligence must exclude S. I think much more so." -- I hopefully clarified my stance on this in my Lynch comment. Film is not ONLY a visual art, and though the visuals are a large part of filmmaking, they're also included with the plot, music, themes, subtexts, acting, et cetera. N types may focus on aesthetics but it'll be to consciously convey or accent or complement a theme or subtext or plot point. (Ex. INTJ Nolan insists all style comes from content). An S type however will be more interested in aesthetics for their own sake "just for the heck of it." Does that make sense now? Also you've continually ignored the explanation for the relationship between intelligence and the N/S dichotomy. I've said it many times: CORRELATION NOT CAUSATION. If you bring up that you believe N is smarter than S again, please first refute this.So either you are using descriptions from numerous sites on the net or you have self invented profile portraits of the personality typesYou don't believe in Jungian typology which is fine by me and you seem to stick to four adjectives which is also quite right. But how do you, if I may ask, arrive at such elaborate explanations of all personality types. Oh ENTPs are like this and that and ESFPs are like such! The four letters tell nothing more than if a a person is introverted or extraverted (how do one draw the line), abstract or concrete (no one can be absolutely abstract or concrete), feeling or thinking (most troublesome dichotomy) and judging or perceiving. The four letters on theie own will give nothing more. .Big Five is a trait test. It doesn't define one's personality. Its extremely good at measuring those traits if done right. It won't however explain what the scores mean at all.Big Five is a trait test. It doesn't define one's personality. Its extremely good at measuring those traits if done right. It won't however explain what the scores mean at all."Find me one model that is totally scientific in measuring human personality!" The Big Five. Which, by the way, was NOT based on Jung. And, by the way, the only "scientific validity" that the "four scales" of the MBTI come close to is their loose correlation to the Big Five. The functions, of course, have no validity at all. I have no idea why I have to keep repeating this. It's as though people are being willfully ignorant or something.DAMNIT! I had this whole fucking thing written out, it was awesome, then I hit submit and the goddamn site logged me out and didn't post anything! WHAT THE FUCK? Anyway, rest assured that if you read it you would have no doubts QT is an ENTP. But I sure as hell don't feel like trying to rewrite it right now. Maybe I will later. This is not over yet."Find David Lynch explicitly saying he made his entire aesthetic style for no reason other than for the aesthetics. And also find him saying he didn't focus on the ideas/symbols/themes almost at all. You can't find both, because he is an N type (INFJ, probably, with INFP in second). And no, I'm not proving that MBTI is pseudoscience. I'm not so sure Tarantino would test as NT." Well see, Quentin Tarantino didn't say that either. Funny how you ignored the part about how you completely took that quote out of context. My point was that David Lynch clearly plays with imagery just for the hell of it too. He has been known to start without a script and call in random objects to throw in a scene or make stylistic changes in the middle of production. His goal is to create an aesthetic, especially in a film like Eraserhead. He is still definitely an N, but my point was that the idea that a focus on aesthetics WHILE CRAFTING A VISUAL ART must exclude N is at least as ridiculous as the idea that high intelligence must exclude S. I think much more so. Everything you're using to justify your ESFP typing - it's just his "well developed inferior functions" I could just as easily say for my ENTP typing. He just happens to have a highly developed Se or Si or whatever. That's why you cannot type based on functions. It's ridiculous. We've been over this. Remember how I demonstrated how you could pseudoscientifically type George Carlin as an ISTJ using that method? That's exactly the same kind of argument you are using. You can BS about functions to argue anybody is any type. It does not work. Why? Because even if there was anything at all to cognitive functions, they could only possibly be useful at an individual, personal level. The idea that the "ultimate goal" is to "ascertain" them is ridiculous because it is literally impossible unless you are Professor Xavier. Behavior is literally the only thing you can try to type someone else based on. That's why the test is done the way it is: MBTI was made to practically convert Jung's ideas for measurement in the real world. That's where the four letters come from. The idea that you can "see" someone's functions, least of all someone famous you do not know, is absurd.And to clarify: the ultimate goal is to ascertain someone's cognitive functions, not merely describe their behavior.Right! In order to type people effectively, one has to use both MBTI letters and cognitive functions. Failure to do so results in making odd or biased claims. The MBTI is soft science, as is every other personality type system out there. Jungian functions are impossible to prove or disprove but nonetheless weren't made up without evidence -- they're a cognitive theory, not merely a cognitive philosophy. And the MBTI is one operationalization of that theory (and for pure typology, one of the better operationalizations). Also it's types that haven't held up very much to scientific scrutiny. All four scales have been proven to be acceptably valid.You can't possibly be using MBTI voting if you feel Jungian functions are crap? Have you even considered reading Myer? Some of the comments show NT elitism which I believed should be dropped. MBTI letter by letter typing is rudimentary even according to Myers who did consider cognitive functions as the actual deal. Because MBTI's 4 letters aren't measured in a continuum and are rather discreet with no middle ground, it's not based on behavioural considerationsSecond: Most personality type models are influenced by Jung. Even the behavioral ones based on Jung like Keirsey or newer more scientifically ascertainable models like Big Five etcA few points: Jungian typology isn't scientific because its not measurable and doesn't meet many scientific measures per say but because its a theory/field of psyche. Even the bbehavioral models have problems. Only psychological models that show moderately good scientific backing and pathological psychology and even that has it's pitfalls. Conclusion: find me one model that is totally scientific in measuring human personality! That said I find Jungian typology highly insightful and even mystical in a sense which can give one subjective and personal insight into others.Anyway, I still think we're ultimately at an impasse, so I say unless you want to continue debating, let's make final statements and call it a day. It's clear that neither of us are convincing the other of much. Let's let the future readers/voters/commenters be the judge.What word works better than "preoccupied?" And I believe I've already accounted for his unconventionality, etc. at various points in this discussion.Find David Lynch explicitly saying he made his entire aesthetic style for no reason other than for the aesthetics. And also find him saying he didn't focus on the ideas/symbols/themes almost at all. You can't find both, because he is an N type (INFJ, probably, with INFP in second). And no, I'm not proving that MBTI is pseudoscience. I'm not so sure Tarantino would test as NT."N types value aesthetics too but nonetheless are more *preoccupied* with ideas/abstractions/symbols/etc. " As is Tarantino, clearly, based on the countless examples I have given, the whole of his work, and his general eccentricity and unconventionality rather than a concrete, down to Earth personality like Spielberg, Also, "preoccupied" really isn't the right word.I didn't say there were no N actors, but yeah it's not wholly implausible for an ENTP to begin as an actor and then end up as a filmmaker. Granted it's no less implausible for an ESFP, and indeed ESFPs are more likely to want to be actors instead of filmmakers than ENTPs (on average). I'll remove that point though. Again the quotes I sent weren't even the meat of the argument, just things to show you I didn't just read CT's analysis and then change my opinion."And yes, I know I'm arguing inferior Ni here. He could still have developed inferior Ni. And because he's extremely smart, that is not only plausible, but likely." Your argument is based around an unconfirmed IQ result that would strongly indicate an N type if anything. Since we can't read his mind, we can't assume he is an extreme outlier god who just so happens to be an ESFP, but his "inferior Ni," supposedly the repressed, weakest part of him,mis nonetheless stronger than the N part of anyone else, You are making personality out to be more than what it is. You are relying on far reaching stretches and irrelevant factors that are unconfirmed. Basically, you are proving why MBTI is pseudoscience. QT would test ENTP, or the Big 5 equivalent, and that is all there is to it. I have no doubts about it." Going by all the filmmakers I've typed N." Ever heard of David Lynch? Or is he an S too?"Also pardon me but what's your Django argument again?" More important is the part about how that quote was taken out of context and had nothing to do with his filmmaking preferences."Tarantino wanted to be an actor originally helps prove that he indeed is *preoccupied* (not necessarily is good at) with the aesthetic/tangible/real-world aspects of filmmaking." No it doesn't. What, are there no N actors now either? It proves he had an interest in film. But his N personality was more suited for where he ended up.Going by all the filmmakers I've typed N.Also pardon me but what's your Django argument again?"Okay, "almost never." I have yet to see an N filmmaker do so. Even the NPs. " Oh really? So you know all the filmmakers? They have all taken the test and told you their type? Or can you use your telepathic powers to see their cognition too?I know what an IQ test measures. Again, I've already addressed how an ESFP could score highly on an IQ test. Correlation not causation.That's not the only quote I found that says a similar thing. Please read my initial argument in full again -- you're ignoring much of it.Lol at "you should go apply for Celebrity Types" -- look at all the places I disagree with them! And yes, I know I'm arguing inferior Ni here. He could still have developed inferior Ni. And because he's extremely smart, that is not only plausible, but likely."From his own mouth, he effectively said he doesn't analyze his films, values clarity over complexity, and focused on the aesthetic aspects." Not effectively. Not in any sense. Maybe after you put those words in his mouth, but only then. The actual substance of that quote doesn't even say a damn thing about "thematic" anything. All he says is that violence is not inherently a political or moral thing to him. In context, he is explaining why he doesn't think violence in movies causes real world violence. It has absolutely nothing to do with what he is best at or emphasizes in his unconventional, idiosyncratic, intuitive filmmaking style, which again speaks for itself."Again, he's extremely intelligent and thus has a better N side than most N filmmakers, but nonetheless is *preoccupied* with the S-traits of his films." This entire post is gibberish. I honestly don't buy the 160 IQ thing, and amazingly that seems to be counter-intuitively the backbone of your argument that he is ESFP. Indicating that you do not understand what an IQ test measures, or somehow think one of the least N types that is least suited for an IQ test somehow has a better N side than an actual N and thus has a higher IQ but still has to be ESFP, but probably would not test that way because of his high N. I just... I don't even. You are going to the most extraordinary lengths to justify a wrong argument that I have ever seen.From his own mouth, he effectively said he doesn't analyze his films, values clarity over complexity, and focused on the aesthetic aspects.Okay, "almost never." I have yet to see an N filmmaker do so. Even the NPs. Any P type is interested in experimentation. All people tend to gravitate toward (a) their interests and (b) what they're good at -- nonetheless, the fact that Tarantino wanted to be an actor originally helps prove that he indeed is *preoccupied* (not necessarily is good at) with the aesthetic/tangible/real-world aspects of filmmaking. N types value aesthetics too but nonetheless are more *preoccupied* with ideas/abstractions/symbols/etc. And hold on for the Django point -- I need to scroll down to read it again :P"Remember, he's extremely intelligent and thus even if he's an S, as I postulate, he'd have a better N side than most N types." Go apply to Celebrity Types. Now. They would love to have you. If he has a "better N side than most N types," he would be an N. Also, you are trying to argue has INFERIOR Ni here, if you're going down that road. Remember that,"Tarantino comes up with many interconnected symbolic ideas but he cares much more about/thinks much more about the aesthetics and immediate plot." Bullshit. You have no proof for this. Your quotes don't cut it. His work speaks for itself. His more typically N talents and interests and his offbeat, quirky personality and unique style speaks for itself."N filmmakers never make enormous stylistic choices simply for the heck of it." Who says? "Never" is a very strong word. Besides, It is Js who put a purpose to everything. Ps sometimes like just experimenting with things for fun, especially NPs. You also ignored my Django point. And Tarantino wanting to be an actor doesn't change the fact that he js bad at it. He found what suited him best. That is really screenwriting above all else. S types are more in the moment and that is why they are seen as typically better at drawing, acting, technical skills, etc. And yes, by the way, N types can value aesthetics.Again, he's extremely intelligent and thus has a better N side than most N filmmakers, but nonetheless is *preoccupied* with the S-traits of his films.And yes he's an excellent screenwriter, but writing talent and S aren't mutually exclusive. It's more to do with intelligence and talent, both of which are largely independent of type. There are great writers of all 16 types. Tarantino comes up with many interconnected symbolic ideas but he cares much more about/thinks much more about the aesthetics and immediate plot. Remember, he's extremely intelligent and thus even if he's an S, as I postulate, he'd have a better N side than most N types."I used that to explain why SPs could also explore possibilities." SPs seize opportunities in the moment. They are concrete and literal and conventional and deal with the world accordingly. Tarantino is quirky, eccentric, idiosyncratic, unconventional. He makes connections no one else would ever think of. He comes up with wild metaphors and symbols, He draws lines between things in ways that are far from obvious and digs more deeply into seemingly simplistic ideas than any S type ever would. That is what I mean by explore possibilities. Very different from the more linear, concrete way an S type does. Again see Spielberg,No, it's not BS -- being good at drawing has nothing to do with *valuing* aesthetics above symbols. Also, I mentioned Tarantino originally wanted to be an actor, right?"Why should he" -- because it's a defining feature of his filmmaking style. N filmmakers never make enormous stylistic choices simply for the heck of it. Christopher Nolan, INTJ, insists all style comes from content. Tarantino fully rejects that idea."while making films, focuses on the aesthetic side more so than the symbolic thematic side" This is bullshit. Your own quote about drawing suggests that. That he is much better at writing scripts than the more fine tuned technical aspects, acting, etc. suggests that. That he creates such an interconnected, nonlinear world rich in symbolism, patterns, connections, themes, and possibilities that are far from obvious or concrete and dig deeper into things than most would think to and see more to them and gather more ideas from them than any S type ever would downright proves it, considering it defines N in every way, Judging him by the entirety of his work in addition to everything he said beyond select cherry picked quotes taken out of context also works."he doesn't think about the underlying meaning/implications/symbolism behind his violence" Why should he? Who says violence has to have any meaning/implications/symbolism? Who says an N has to think everything is a symbol? Even Freud knew sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And Tarantino didn't even say that; CLEARLY, he thinks about the deeper implications and symbolism in movies all the time. (Top Gun, Like a Virgin, Superman, etc.) And with something like Django, obviously there was a deeper motivation behind it. He said he wanted it to be something of a cathartic experience and to get people to examine slavery and the past no matter how uncomfortable.Now you're ignoring my argument.MBTI 101: Tarantino's an E and P obviously, an S because he, while making films, focuses on the aesthetic side more so than the symbolic thematic side, and an F because he believes anyone can make a great film if he/she loves it enough and doesn't like analyzing his films as he writes them. Also you missed the point as to why I brought the def. of P up; I used that to explain why SPs could also explore possibilities.No, I didn't keep bringing it up. I never would have brought it up if you hadn't. I would have been glad to let it die. Your whole argument is nonexistent. It relies entirely on things like that and more BS like your BS about westerns and drawing. Every one of your quotes and examples I can twist with ease to support my side, The CT approach does not work. The only way to find the Beat Fit Type, and that is all you can find, is to look at everything as a whole. QT as a whole fits ENTP best.Wow! You know what a P type is! Do you know what an N type is? Because that's the type that deals in metaphors, creates interconnected systems, and draws connections between unrelated things. Combine it with P, also E and T, and you have Quentin Tarantino. ENTP. It's like MBTI 101 all over again.Look at my whole argument. The Hateful Eight thing is just a small piece of it. But it nonetheless fits. I only keep focusing on it because you keep bringing it up.No, what you said has nothing to do with T/F. By the same logic I could say that returning to the film showed his thinking side. Abandoning it was just his getting caught up in his poorly developed, unhealthy feeling side, when he would do longer be acting as a thinker as he would in his healthiest state, but as an unhealthy feeler. Also he did have a "reason" in a way: The script was leaked. And again, I do not understand why you continue to focus on one bizarrely specific example of behavior, when you yourself apparently think you can read his mind and see his cognition, instead of looking at his life and work as a whole. Clearly, I can just as easily argue that instance fits better with my side than yours,P = examining all possibilities and gathering information rather than being decisive and focused.It seems we're at an impasse because neither of us are fully understanding the other's arguments. Please list all the points I am ignoring. I'd be more than happy to respond to each. However for IQ and type you seem to not understand that an extremely intelligent S would have a better developed N side than most N types and thus would be able to score higher on an IQ test than most people.That is utter nonsense. N is the letter concerned with drawing connections between things. NOT P. And the level Tarantino explores things and makes metaphors on is FAR from obvious or concrete. It is unique and idiosyncratic. You are completely abusing the word "intellectual" here. Not everything an N ever does must be strictly "intellectual." But the world QT has crafted is highly indicative of an NP type. If you are really arguing that, you are just fundamentally wrong about what an NP type is.I agree that T/F has nothing to do with emotional intensity. However T means one values the head over the heart; vice versa for F. Making a film is an enormous decision and to abandon that film is extremely heart > head. It's more plausible for an F to do that, though not out of the question for a T.he's clearly extremely intelliGENT, but not very intellecTUAL. That's indicative of "smart S." And no, the correlation is not strong enough to imply all geniuses are N types. If I'm totally wrong in how I assume a high-IQ ESFP would use his IQ, please explain what the "right" way is. There is no right way. That's the point. IQ does NOT mean smart. What part of that do you not understand? A smart S will still probably only have above average IQ score at best, simply because the types of intelligence S types will possess are not abstract intelligence that the IQ test measures. For the third time now, and I am running out of patience as you continue to ignore the most important points, IQ tests measure a very specific type of intelligence. Not moviemaking ability.And okay yeah this one requires explanation. It's easy to confuse SPs with NPs sometimes, because both are curious, spontaneous, proactive, excellent at drawing connections between things. That's P. However SPs explore connections on a more obvious, concrete level while NPs explore them on a more nuanced, intellectual level. What you describe in your "connected universe" post is actually more evident of the former than of the latter.Because, for about the 1,000,000,00th time, F/T has nothing to do with experiencing emotjon at all,"What TP would completely abandon a project entirely out of anger and then soon afterward go back to it?" A neurotic TP. Also, there's the fact that you ALSO ignored that T types are theoretically MORE likely to express emotion in unhealthy, angry ways like that because of poorly developed feeling.I've read it too, in enough places to believe it, and even if it's false he's clearly extremely intelliGENT, but not very intellecTUAL. That's indicative of "smart S." And no, the correlation is not strong enough to imply all geniuses are N types. If I'm totally wrong in how I assume a high-IQ ESFP would use his IQ, please explain what the "right" way is.Consider the fact that all of Tarantino's films are connected. He has crafted his own fully realized universe within his scripts and makes references to it within each of his films. For instance, Kill Bill is actually a movie watched by the people in the Pulp Fiction universe, and Uma Thurman as Mia Wallace is starring as The Bride. (Remember Mia's pilot in Pulp Fiction) This is alluded to in the films and has been confirmed. That is just one of many, many examples. Also consider all the long monologues Tarantino is (in)famous for writing and sometimes delivering that are EXTREMELY indicative of an intuitive perceiving personality as they draw connections between seemingly unrelated elements, especially films. Not only Bill's Superman speech, also the speech Tarantino himself delivered about Top Gun. Calvin Candie's rants in Django Unchained. The fact that many of his scenes revolve around seemingly benign objects or factoids and the ideas just bounce off from there as something seemingly insignificant proves crucial to the plot. There's Vincent going to the bathroom in Pulp Fiction, for instance. There's the whole opening scene with Hans Landa. There's Butch and Marsellus happening to stumble into a redneck rape dungeon. The zaniness of it all, the exploring of all the wildest possibilities that could occur behind the scenes within the world that most pay no attention to, the zeroing in on little details and showing how the smallest thing could prove to be a huge link in the chain. It all seems highly indicative of an NP personality. Even based on the functions, which I typically disregard as pseudoscience, I cannot help but see "Ne" all over the place. When I think of an actual example of actual "Ne," if there were such a thing, Tarantino is literally the first thing I think of."You're ignoring how I'm using his IQ to argue for ESFP." No I'm not. I think it's ridiculous, First of all, AGAIN, what YOU are ignoring is that it is NOT confirmed fact that is his IQ. It should not play a crucial role in either side. But supposing it is true, you are totally wrong to assume how some hypothetical 160 IQ ESFP (an oxymoron) would use their IQ. IQ is a measure of potential, it doesn't take personal interests and differences and experiences into account. It is merely a number that measures a very specific kind of INTUITIVE/INTELLECTUAL intelligence. Not all Ns will have high IQs, but the correlation does suggest that all those with genius level IQs will be Ns/Big Five intellectuals.Again, please list the facets of your argument that I ignored, and I'll address them.No there isn't still a strong case for ESFP. Almost all of your, ahem, "evidence" was of a similar nature. You were dead wrong in every way about the CRUCIAL matter of the key difference between an NP/SP types. All of the examples I gave, the arguments I made in favor of NP, you just straight up ignored. Everything you claimed was indicative of SF can easily be explained by factors of personality, mainly neuroticism, not measured by the MBTI. I see no argument to speak of here.Again, IQ and type is correlation not causation. You're ignoring how I'm using his IQ to argue for ESFP.You are taking this 160 IQ thing too far. I said I read that; I am not 100% certain it is true. Nd frankly I do believe it is impossible for an ESFP to have a 160 IQ. IQ is not all kinds of intelligence, but the kind of intelligence that it does measure is MUCH better suited for N types/Intellectualism/Openness on the Big 5. It actually is a fact that they almost always score higher.If we remove that quote from my argument, there still is a strong case for ESFP.So what Leone influenced him? So? What could that possibly have to do with personality type in the slightest? This is what I mean; like CT, you are focusing on irrelevant bullshit instead of getting to the heart of the matter,I never said N types are all like Einstein either. But Tarantino is of comparable intelligence to Einstein."MBTI validity: it's a soft science, just like Jung's typology. CT actually addresses this in various places." The best that can be said about MBTI scientifically is, third time now, it can be loosely associated to actual science in an indirect fashion. Pure Jung typology is just garbage that no one takes seriously today, less seriously than Freud, and they never really did take it seriously. CT can address what it likes; that site is a sham.The Sergio Leone quote: No that's not what I meant. I like Westerns too! But Tarantino's a filmmaker and he actually said Leone influenced him purely because of the genre he dealt with. N filmmakers usually draw inspiration from more nuanced facets of other filmmakers' techniques."yet believe all SP types are good at drawing" No I son't. I'm just saying that based on the same kind of logic you were using, that quote would support my argument and certainly would not support yours."looking at Tarantino's cognition (not behavior)" Let me just stop you right there. Are you Quentin Tarantino? No? Then it is literally impossible to look at his cognition. His behavior is all you have to go on.MBTI validity: it's a soft science, just like Jung's typology. CT actually addresses this in various places. But yeah let's stop arguing about that because it has nothing to do with Tarantino.The anime quote: you say "not all N types are like Albert Einstein" and yet believe all SP types are good at drawing. Neither are true. I don't think all N types are like Einstein, but we're nonetheless dealing with a person who is 160 IQ -- roughly comparable to Einstein.Just stop trying to argue about the scientific validity of MBTI. Please. You don't know what you are doing. Even CT admits that it is not scientific. No study has ever correctly concluded that the MBTI scales have validity, reliability, test re-test accuracy, falsifiability, etc. I could go on. And Jung's psychodynamics are outright laughed at. The concept of 16 "types" is BS anyway. Not all ENTPs will be the same. Why? The individual variation in personality. Which can be measured on the Big Five. And as I have said repeatedly now, almost all of the things you say about QT being emotional (which, AGAIN, has NOTHING to do with F/T), are related to elements of personality the MBTI does not even attempt to measure.Hold on I just have to address this nonsense first. I am overwhelmed by the incredible wrogness and inconsistency of the entirety of your argument here, but this struck me as particularly bad: "I want to have the fun of doing anime and I love anime, but I can't do storyboards because I can't really draw and that's what they live and die on." You do realize that SPs are stereotyped as good at drawing, etc., right? You do realize that this quote actually supports my typing right? RIGHT? I mean you're trying to say QT focuses on concrete, tangible crafting rather than ideas, but this just could not be further from the truth and your own quotes prove it. I also don't understand why you think all N types must be Albert Einstein or something. ENTPs are hardly serious intellectuals at all times. How ridiculous. And the thing about liking westerns making one an S??? What the actual fuck? I love westerns, especially Sergio Leone. Am I an S because of that? Your argument style here is identical to CT: You cherrypick quotes that have exactly no relevance whatsoever to the important parts of personality, are based mostly on very trivial things and stereotypes like that, do not exclude any type, and then go on to use them to support your argument. Instead of, you know, looking at the person and their body of work as a whole.And if that's your view of Jung, it is extremely narrow. Despite many of his theories being difficult to prove, he nonetheless was an incredibly influential psychologist. He was used to profile Hitler, after all.There has never been a study that outright refuted the MBTI. All tests have found that, despite problems, all four scales have an acceptable level of validity.List all the parts of your argument I ignored because I'm actually not sure what I missed. That way I can address them.Yes, the company that publishes the MBTI couldn't possibly be extremely biased or anything. And yeah, enneagram is pseudoscience too. Function theory is no better. The former was based around numerology; the latter was made by a psychoanalytic crackpot who liked astrology and the occutlt.Man, I don't even know where to start. You pretty much just ignored the most substantial elements of my argument because you couldn't argue them and settled for expanding on the initial parts of your argument. The fact that you said the parts I wrote screams "SP" leaves me very confused. Are you trying to say Tarantino absorbs information unfiltered and literally in the moment or are you trying to say he draws connections between seemingly unrelated ideas and objects? Because the former is SP, the latter is NP. Your entire premise and understanding of what this means is apparently fundamentally wrong.It is not hard science by any means but is not pseudoscience either. Enneagram is pseudoscience.No it is not. https://www.cpp.com/pdfs/MBTI_FormM_Supp.pdfMBTI IS pseudoscience. Even CT doesn't pretend that it is science. The four dichotomies have NEVER been proven to have scientific validity. The closest they have ever come is being loosely correlated to 4/5 of the Big Five. But the function theory has NEVER had one iota of evidence supporting it. We have been over this. MBTI may be a useful model for what it is, but it is mot science.Anyway, to sum up my arguments, Tarantino is a genius-level ESFP who therefore is able to make movies as thoughtfully as most NTPs. But when you examine his cognition, it becomes apparent that he's more concerned with immediate, tangible elements of his films than what they mean. That is to say he's not very intellectUAL despite being a genius. And he's actually very emotional and believes "If you just love movies enough, you can make a good one," meaning he's probably an F.Fifth, to address your third post, SJs are more likely to make linear plots than either SPs or NTs. SPs are creative and out-of-the-box too, but in a more practical, tangible manner while NPs are more intellectually curious and nuanced in their creativity. The fact that he said "As a viewer, the minute I start getting confused, I check out of the movie. Emotionally, I'm severed." kind of proves my point. He's able to make such brilliantly structured films because he's, well, brilliant (160 IQ) but he's still being as clear as possible given the nonlinear structure. As for why ENTP ties ESFP on this site just proves many people here aren't CT sheep. As you rightly pointed out, my initial pro-ESFP argument was lackluster, and the voters thus believed your stronger ENTP argument over my comparatively poor ESFP one.Fourth, to address your second post, everything you just wrote screams Se/SP to me. He's exploring the connections between real, tangible objects, not ideas and intellectual possibilities.Thirdly, to address your first post, it's not that he uses violence aesthetically that makes him an S type, but rather that he doesn't think about the underlying meaning/implications/symbolism behind his violence. ENTPs and ESFPs are both fun personalities but ENTPs put an intellectual bent on their fun (like Terry Gilliam, Matthew Inman, Benjamin Franklin, etc.) while ESFPs' sense of fun is more immediate. The Hateful Eight thing is definitely P but is also FP. What TP would completely abandon a project entirely out of anger and then soon afterward go back to it? There was no rational reason for him to abandon it in the first place. This is actually what made me begin to question him being ENTP more seriously. You say "not sure why you're saying he has genius level intellect in the sentence after you said he's not 'intellectual'"; that's actually exactly the point. Intelligence and intellectualism are separate, and his 160 IQ explains why he'd have a higher overt intellectualism than most ESFPs. Similarly, you just convinced me that Martin Prince from The Simpsons is ISTJ for the same reason I'm arguing Tarantino ESFP: he's smart enough to be as intellectual as an average N without being one. Tarantino is extremely smart but that doesn't make him an N type a priori, and in fact because he's not naturally intellectUAL it can help explain ESFP. And no, though N types on a macro level are more intelligent (in terms of IQ) than S types, on a micro level it has little bearing. Likewise, women on average live longer than men. But being male doesn't automatically make you have a shorter lifespan than all women. I never said "all personality types are equal in everything" and am not sure where you're getting that from. Of course I don't think that. Finally, I do agree Spielberg is more stereotypically SFP than Tarantino. But again, looking at Tarantino's cognition (not behavior), his inspiration for making films is much more like Spielberg's than like Terry Gilliam's, for example. Anyway, all ExxP types are on the table. There's no way he's an INTP or any introvert - in fact the E and P are incredibly obvious. So INTP is out of the question but neither ENTP nor ESFP are.Second, on Tarantino himself, of course I didn't just look at CT's quotes. I definitely should have phrased my comment better (thanks for offering a legit rebuttal by the way) but I did do more in-depth research. Here are some other quotes I found that support ESFP over ENTP. (1) "What I do, as I'm writing a movie, is go through all those songs, trying to find good songs for fights, or good pieces of music to layer into the film." -- He thinks in a concrete manner and writes by brainstorming his scenes with music, plot only. ENTPs may use music to brainstorm too but it won't be just to add tone to a scene, it'll be to add a layer of meaning or subtext to a scene. (2) "I just grew up watching a lot of movies. I'm attracted to this genre and that genre, this type of story, and that type of story. As I watch movies I make some version of it in my head that isn't quite what I'm seeing - taking the things I like and mixing them with stuff I've never seen before." -- Concrete, craft-like experimentation based on personal experience, tastes, and desires. That's S-type creativity. Or in Jungian functions, Se. (3) "If you just love movies enough, you can make a good one." -- What T, especially an NT, would believe this? (4) "As a viewer, the minute I start getting confused, I check out of the movie. Emotionally, I'm severed." -- This is very S. N types would be more likely to be attracted to movies that are complex and puzzling. (5) "I want to have the fun of doing anime and I love anime, but I can't do storyboards because I can't really draw and that's what they live and die on." -- One of many quotes that demonstrates that he's not intellectual but rather more fun-based/aesthetically minded. (6) "When I'm writing something, I try not to get analytical about it as I'm doing it, as I'm writing it." -- The definition of S. (7) "Sergio Leone was a big influence on me because of the spaghetti westerns." -- Not because of Leone's techniques or his films' meanings, simply because of his genre. S type. (8) "My parents said, Oh, he's going to be a director someday. I wanted to be an actor." -- ESFPs are stereotypical performers and, compared to ENTPs, would be attracted to acting over directing (note in reality, both types can excel at either profession; I'm just saying in terms of MBTI, NTs would be much more interested in directing from the start than SPs would be). Anyway these are just a few quotes that are by no means the meat of my argument, just a summation of my research. My initial arguments are much like CT's because they are correct in this instance and sum up the argument well.First of all, the functions are not pseudoscience. The MBTI test is an operationalization of Jung's theories and thus, if you dismiss the functions as pseudoscience, you effectively dismiss the MBTI as pseudoscience as well. All four MBTI dichotomies have been proven to have scientific validity, and thus the MBTI is not pseudoscience. Because the MBTI is not pseudoscience, the functions aren't either. It's fallacious to use one without acknowledgment of the other's validity.To add even more: All of Tarantino's films are highly nonlinear. S types almost always make very linear works. Tarantino's films go all over the place. At first it leaves the audience wondering what is going on and how this has any relevance to the plot, and then by the end he ties everything together brilliantly. The strange, satirical, witty humor he throws in and the unorthodox dialogue delivered by every character. It all suggests to me that he is an NP. The fact that it appears ENTP has actually tied the "Celebrity Types official" type here today, whereas almost every other typing on this site is completely in line with CT, speaks volumes to me.To add to my previous arguments: Consider the fact that all of Tarantino's films are connected. He has crafted his own fully realized universe within his scripts and makes references to it within each of his films. For instance, Kill Bill is actually a movie watched by the people in the Pulp Fiction universe, and Uma Thurman as Mia Wallace is starring as The Bride. (Remember Mia's pilot in Pulp Fiction) This is alluded to in the films and has been confirmed. That is just one of many, many examples. Also consider all the long monologues Tarantino is (in)famous for writing and sometimes delivering that are EXTREMELY indicative of an intuitive perceiving personality as they draw connections between seemingly unrelated elements, especially films. Not only Bill's Superman speech, also the speech Tarantino himself delivered about Top Gun. Calvin Candie's rants in Django Unchained. The fact that many of his scenes revolve around seemingly benign objects or factoids and the ideas just bounce off from there as something seemingly insignificant proves crucial to the plot. There's Vincent going to the bathroom in Pulp Fiction, for instance. There's the whole opening scene with Hans Landa. There's Butch and Marsellus happening to stumble into a redneck rape dungeon. The zaniness of it all, the exploring of all the wildest possibilities that could occur behind the scenes within the world that most pay no attention to, the zeroing in on little details and showing how the smallest thing could prove to be a huge link in the chain. It all seems highly indicative of an NP personality. Even based on the functions, which I typically disregard as pseudoscience, I cannot help but see "Ne" all over the place. When I think of an actual example of actual "Ne," if there were such a thing, Tarantino is literally the first thing I think of."In-depth research" meaning you read the quotes Celebrity Types has up right? Because that's all you referenced. Aesthetic violence does not rule out ENTP. At all. Not everything an N does has to have a political/moral point to it. But if anything, that suggests to me that he is indeed a T rather than an F, and would have nothing to do with S/N. Since when does violence have to have anything to do with politics or morality in the first place? Tarantino goes over the top because he wants to. I have never heard of his approaching filmmaking as a "craft," which again would be utterly meaningless to personality anyway. And ENTPs love games and are very fun personalities so.... And I already addressed the "emotional outbursts" below. Neuroticism is not measured on the MBTI. Possessing emotions has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with T/F, and if anything, expressing emotions in an UNHEALTHY way (i. e. an outburst) would in theory be more likely to be done by a T type. The Hateful Eight thing only says to me that he is a P, which is obvious anywa