Sign Up | Log in |

Stanley Kubrick MBTI

Myers Briggs type and personality details of 'Stanley Kubrick'
Stanley Kubrick MBTI type
Realm:


Category:
Acting and Movie Industry

TOTAL MBTI VOTES: 85


INTJ - 43
ISTP - 31
INTP - 11

[Famous INTJs]

Log in to vote!

TOTAL ENNEA VOTES: 23


5W4 - 14
5W6 - 5
8W9 - 2
1W9 - 1
3W4 - 1

[Famous Enneagram 5]

Log in to vote!

Old (unmoderated comments)

The more I read about Kubrick, the more INTJ he gets. He tethers the line between nihilism and absurdism. Kubrick: "We’re fortunate, in a way, that our body, and the fulfillment of its needs and functions, plays such an imperative role in our lives; this physical shell creates a buffer between us and the mind-paralyzing realization that only a few years of existence separate birth from death. If man really sat back and thought about his impending termination, and his terrifying insignificance and aloneness in the cosmos, he would surely go mad, or succumb to a numbing sense of futility.

MBTI type of Stanley Kubrick

. Why, he might ask himself, should he bother to write a great symphony, or strive to make a living, or even to love another, when he is no more than a momentary microbe on a dust mote whirling through the unimaginable immensity of space?"Replace "visual" with "graphic" ^_^@bobnickmad It's the visual definition of healthy Ni. I give up on you.

Find out about Stanley Kubrick personality type

. Sayonara!#Bonita, No, I just didn't find it very helpful, sorry. #Scotty, It's the fact that INTPs aren't very focused, they're shooting in different directions which can very peculiar movies (Cronenberg) but would probably lead to wasting resources when it comes to making movies like 2001, and seeing that Kubrick was a full on auteur, I'm not sure he could have afforded this.Information about Myers Briggs Type Indicator of Stanley Kubrick. It seems that he actually knew very well what he needed in his movies, which makes me think that the whole shooting a scene after scene might have been copying Bresson's method (IxTJ) whose scope is probably making the actors fully under his control like puppets, rather than him being P. Also I kinda disagree with the notion that INTJ ignore details and are not through, it seems to me that a type that's focused on making his vision a reality can't afford not being through and perfectionist.Which of the 16 personality types is Stanley Kubrick?. INTPs may be more through when it comes to theories because they're theory first, but INTJ are probably more through when it comes to making their dreams a reality. Overall, I think it can be made a good case that Kubrick showed both strong Te and Ti characteristics. Taking complete control from the fiscal aspects to set and ligthning to where and how the movies must be distributed is seen a sign of ST but it could rather be Te instead. It's TJs rather than SPs who are seen as being responsible and in full control of everything like that. For me INTJ are Ni-Te-Ti and INTP Ti-Ne-Ni, so having strong Te and Ti characteristics fits INTJ. The issue here is Ni-dom. Maybe we make too much of a case for how Ni should be presented in an artists work, rather than look at the artists overall goal -not by movie case-by-case but his all work. Is it true that he wanted to make the best movie and every category? Or was it just something others said about him due to how accomplished he was? Because if he really set out making the best movie in every category, I can only see an NTJ having that kind of ambition, and that could be his Ni vision.Did my video go over your head @bobnickmad? XDNietzsche is the posterboy of morally ambiguos INTJ for example. I think STJ are more likely to be black-and-white due to Si-Fi but Ni-dominance can give plenty of ambiguity. Or watch Chan-Wok Park's Vengeance Yrilogy: 1st movie is as ambigous as it gets, 2nd is moralistic anti-vengeance, and the 3rd almost praises vengeance as some kind of necessary healing process. Total clusterfuck of moral ambiguity! Also I think 5w4 is attracted to this kind of ambiguity as opposed to let's say a 1.Actually, I take my last comment back. I went on the INTJ reddit and found some morally ambiguous INTJs! https://www.reddit.com/r/intj/comments/2zscbj/what_do_you_intjs_think_of_morality/I was leaning towards INTJ because of the themes he was attracted to... most of which have to do with the human psyche. 2001 A Space Odyssey was like a anthropological study on mankind and human behavior. But then at the same time, I don't know about INTJ. Most of his films are so morally ambiguous. In A Clockwork Orange, he'll show the downside of free will and morality and then flip it around to show the opposite. INTJs can sometimes be ridiculously black-and-white about moral and ethical issues which is why Kubrick's moral ambiguity keeps me wondering.So according to bobnick, INTPs can't make grand scale movies or something, because what exactly? There's so many different people who can be categorized as introverted, intuitive, thinking, and perceiving, and not all of them are awful at that kind of stuff.@bobnickmad "Kubrick // One-Point Perspective" https://vimeo.com/48425421Don't know, but honestly if someone could prove he's INTJ it'd be more than happy, the whole "every great director who seems IN is actually genius ISP" started from him.sooooooooooooooooo @bobnickmad After all your confusing babbling what do you think his type is? Just answer the four letters.#idlebody Te is focused on efficiency, not Ti who's more individualistic and thus highly perfectionistic. Altough the thing with multiple takes is that it was Bresson's method (likely ITJ) and it was in order to make the actors more robotic . I agree that aesthetics is not S over N (you'l find many SPs not giving a shit about it and N who do), for example I think Chan Work-Park is INTJ and his movies have some of the best cinematography ever, and I woul put him over Kubrick. My point was that he was too practical at gathering and managing resources to make the grand scale movies he did in order to be INTP. But management skills like that is more Te than anything. The issue is with lack of evidence for Ni-dom and ISTJ is out of the question, he was no N inferior.I also don't believe this whole "Intuitives can't have aesthetic" nonsense. Look at Wong Kar-Wai films.Me and idlebody align so much when typing people; must be our tritype even when we're different MBTI.I know that Kubrick doesn't use introverted thinking. People who have Ti are the type who want to do things effectively for the least amount of work. Kubrick isn't like that. He makes his film crew and actors redo scenes about a hundred times, he makes them do everything the long and hard way. He doesn't at all care about doing things as quickly as possible. He had obsessive compulsive disorder, wanting things to be done over and over again until he felt they were perfectly organized which again hints at Te. So he's either ISTJ or INTJ.It's interesting that a movie director can be a ''Jack of all trades, master of none'' type of person, while a cinematographer, set designer etc. has to be a master of one, jack of one type of person, so maybe those are the ISPs. The role of the director is to figure out how to put together the input of all those people, eg.: that person is good at this, this one is good at this, together they can help me create this scene; that is: to see how all the pieces fit best together. It's like a orchestra director vs player in the orchestra thing, they don't necessary need to have the same set of skills, the director needs to have an overall view of things, the player needs to master a specific instrument.I agree with that, but he was still involved in all those aspects more than your typical director, and it was this involvment that can explain why he had such elaborate sets in his movies compared to the budget afforded. Basically, you can have those people but it can easily resolve into chaos unless there's someone offering focus among all those people, and the best way would be for someone who knows a bit from every technical aspect of film-making in order to spot what doesn't work as it should, basically an engineer like director who assimilated every aspect of movie-making. I mean, think of all the big budget SF movies and how few of them achieved what 2001 achieved. Than again, there are INTP inventors and INTPs who build robots and all those kind of technical things so not all are lost in theory, but if he was INTP, he was a very focused one. Who knows, maybe among INTPs, there are some who have a very strong J side developed and are much better at dealing with huge projects, but they would have to overcome many of the typical problems that come with being an INP: too many ideas but little focus. Other explanation would be that because INTPs don't like positions of leadership, we tend to not be aware of how an INTP with good leadership qualities would be like since their natural tendencies is to flee away from such things. A movie director is ultimately a leader kind of person. Also, because they have chaotic life INTPs aren't give much credit for, but there are also INTJ with chaotic life for the simple reason that they find every-day businesses platitudes. I heard that despite INTPs being messy, they can be very ordered when they have to, they just would rather not be. So, either we sub-estimate how intellectual and imaginative an ISTP can be, or we sub-estimate how an INTP with good leadership qualities + technical knowledge looks like. What I'm sure is Ti-dom, it's clear when you read more interviews that for him what matter was accuracy in presenting one's material, and he didn't care about having an unifying theme for his movies, he just liked making movies about things he thought were interesting and wanted to present things truthfully+the whole IxxP thing about respecting viewer's autonomy. The thing with people Kubrick, Jobs or Lynch, it's that they won't have the same flaws as what's expected from their type, otherwise they wouldn't have been geniuses. What I disagree is that INTP artist wouldn't be an extreme perfectionists, I think every self-respecting artist is a perfectionist.Also, remember that Kubrick did not build his own sets himself. There's a reason why "production designer," "set decorator," "cinematographer," and "crew" are listed in the credits of every movie.bobnickmad: I agree with most of what you said, except for: "INTP have a kind of strong grid through which they asses the truth quality of ideas (think Einstein) meanwhile Kubrick was interested in stuff like whether ghosts exists and all kind of crackpot ideas exposed by the kind of people who wear tin-foil hats." As an INTP myself, I tend to be interested in conspiracy theories, fringe science, etc. specifically *because* they're "crackpot ideas" with no clear answer. A lot of people think that Ti-doms like to think in terms of algebra and stuff, but that kind of pure logic became very boring to me at a young age, and I soon became more fascinated by things that my Ti CAN'T easily explain. Ti can only grow by seeking out the unexplainable, thus increasing its learning.yeah, INTPs are the most smartest most ever from the everest just that they dont like to beI don't even know where you are working from. INTPs aren't able to solve all kinds of difficult problems? They may not like doing it, which could be where his asshole attitude comes from, but capability? Nah.I don't even know where you are working from. INTPs aren't able to solve all kinds of difficult problems? They may not like doing it, which could be where his asshole attitude comes from, but capability? Nah.Because STs are more resource oriented, while INTPs are ideas oriented (ENTJ would be the ideal combination of both), and in order to make a movie like 2001 you need to be resource oriented, that is, making best use of the budget and resolving technical problems as they appear. Nowadays, everyone can make a big budget movie if they're supported by a big studio and they use the same stock blockbuster formula, because you take the special effect used countless times, but in order to make something as unique at the time like 2001, you entered in unknown territory, meaning that someone like Kubrick had to involve himself at the lowest level of production and offer advice on anything, which means solving all kinds of difficult problems as they appear, something ISTP tend to be better at.I don't know where you are getting S/Se from that. If anything your first interpretation makes more sense (it being more of a J thing), but Kubrick is clearly intuitive in so many ways, and also a low conscientiousness guyThe eternal back and forth of this site, goes back to ISTP. (I thought I was about to make friends with Scotty again, but I think he must really be annoyed with me now). Anyway, I read about his preparations for Napoleon, about how important is to find the right terrain and a large army and all the logistics involved etc. Anyway, this is one of the reason I once thought he must have been INTJ. Making a movie like 2001 requires really having your stuff together. Now, it's easy for a movie director with colossal budgets to hire the people that do all those things, but Kubrick tried to get involved in those things himself, because he couldn't afford the kind of budget someone like Nolan has. The point is: he was very resourceful. I thought this was Te, but actually it's pretty ST. ST-s are the best at dealing with whatever material resources they have, among the NTs, ENTJ succed as well but INTPs are far from it. INTPs are logically through, but the kind of rigor that's helpful in putting theories together, it's not really what's helpful when it comes to putting huge production after huge production together, while maintaining your artistic independence. There's also the thing that when you need different skills in writing a book that's a SF masterpiece, and making a movie that's a SF masterpiece. In writing the kind of books that Arthus C Clarke (INTx, not sure if INTP or INTJ) writes, you make your world believable by writing in depth on the kind of implications of the technology etc. has, which requires a very imaginative kind of logic. In making a movie, you don't need that, because you don't need to explain stuff, you need to show it. And the kind of skill that requires to use the limited amount of time and use of materials that can be afforded to basically construct elaborate scenes, you need a more practical kind of intelligence. Kubrick also makes it clear in interviews that the point of 2001 is that is a visual experience that is supposed to have a visceral affect on the one watching it, not to explain stuff to the audience. Also, yeah, he had a voracious intellect and all kind of N like interests. But I even knew an ISxJ with whom I could discuss about all kinds of nerdy, science stuff, so it's impossible to have an ISTP, who are Ti-doms, really into that kind of stuff. The thing is, INTP have a kind of strong grid through which they asses the truth quality of ideas (think Einstein) meanwhile Kubrick was interested in stuff like whether ghosts exists and all kind of crackpot ideas exposed by the kind of people who wear tin-foil hats, so while his movies were shaped around his intellectual interests, it's not in intellectual throughesness that his strength lie, but in the kind of practical intelligence that is very good with using material resources to put together all those props and set designs that make a movie like 2001 put to shame productions made in...well, 2001. The detachment and contemplative tone of his movies is probably a 5w4 thing.After revising the MBTI function order and getting some input from Scotty, I renounced thinking in function axes, I got to the conclusion that the function most likely for an INTP to display are Ti, Ne and Ni. There could be cases -especially if we talk about visual artists where Ni is more useful than Ne- where Ne and Ni might start to be indistinguishable. Thinking more about ISP art and INP art. I think Se is more direct in effect, Se is like direct sensation, that is, ISP art leaves you a clear immediate impression. Kubrick's movies aren't really like that. After watching 2001 you remain perplexed, which seems to be more INP art. Like with the monkeys and monolith scene. There's no immediate impression, the point is to raise in the viewer lots of questions about what is that he's seeing. Even a S like movie such as Barry Lyndon (who he made because he couldn't make a movie about Napoleon), compare to your typical period movie, it feels somewhat disembodied. People might claim Ti-dom detachment, but ISTP art is not really detached, since Se is physically direct in response, it's INTP art more likely to be that. At the same time, I'm still open to him being ISTP, but if you don't think in terms of functions axes, INTP seems more like it.Some people use the "coldness" of his films as evidence that he's INTJ, but I'd argue that his films are cold in a Ti way, not a Te way. Take "The Shining" for example. It may seem cold at first, but there are occasional moments of Fe melodrama (e.g. the famous typewriter scene). Compare with films by INTJ directors such as Robert Bresson or David Fincher, in which there's very little outward emotion even during dramatic plot points.Just look at the words in the first 30 seconds of documentary Kubrick INTJ A life in pictures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSgbjhuQ4CoSomeone uploaded "Funeral Parade of Roses" in full to YT yesterday. It does look amazing. Check it out, Alex!The magic of this page happened.3 days ago it was 48 votes ISTP and 44 votes INTJ. What happened?I imagine being me. It's fun. Then I fart myself to sleep.I have a much better imagination than that :D How do you hack everyones accounts???It's just me with my mental disorders. Some times I think I am 92 year old gay Armenian man.Someone hacked my account. AGAIN! Are there no moderators on this site??No I am wrong. ESFJ is a safe bet.Too intelligent, creatively independent and knowledgeable to be ISTP. Also too close to Nietsxzsszxzdszche. A true master."mechanical nature of MBTI" HAHAAAAAA True INFPs don't see MBTI as mechanical, fake INFP.I never claimed it's anything but a personal solipsistic interpretation, it's just helps me understand this people behind the limitations and somewhat mechanical nature of MBTI.No, it's not, it's independent of MBTI, the same way Enneagram is independent of MBTI. I guess it's almost like it converges aspect of MBTI and Enneagram. In a way, you could say that Thinker-Aesthete-Sage explains why Kubrick made the movies he made, while ISTP explains how he made them. Actually, you could say MBTI deals with the How? of personality, Enneagram with the Why?, and my system tries to give some approximate answer to both.That new system of you sounds so much like trolling, to hide the fact that Kubrick was an INTJ.Also, while I have Kubrick as a Thinker-Aesthete, due to his detached reasoning for choosing his movies, 2001 is the movie where his Sage aspect got more to the surface. So, I guess he's Thinker-Aesthete-Sage. The same way Lynch is Dreamer-Aesthete-Sage I guess.I had this idea about 2001 and wanted to share. 2001: A Space Odyssey it's an ''interactive movie''. What I mean by this, it's that it's not a complete movie, but the skeleton of a movie. That is, you're given some basic element and you can make your own movie out of it. This probably explains why it's so talked about in the history of movies. Like I had this idea about the interstellar psychedelic drive, where all the pyschedelic imagery is actually information transmitted toward Dave's unconscious, in order to prepare him for the transformation. But because Dave can't comprehend all that amount of information specially because of its alien origin, it's transmitted in a way that it goes straight in his unconscious mind. See, this is why this movie rules!ISTP director Ridley Scott: writer of ZERO of his movies. Versus INtuitive Kubrick, writer of most of his movies.he's like the perfect man for me, all 4 INXXs blended in one perfect human being."You don’t stop being concerned with man because you recognize his essential absurdities and frailties and pretensions. To me, the only real immorality is that which endangers the species; and the only absolute evil, that which threatens its annihilation. In the deepest sense, I believe in man’s potential and in his capacity for progress. In Strangelove, I was dealing with the inherent irrationality in man that threatens to destroy him; that irrationality is with us as strongly today, and must be conquered. But a recognition of insanity doesn’t imply a celebration of it – nor a sense of despair and futility about the possibility of curing it."Then this is not the place for me. And it never was.MBTI is not politics or religion though. It's about what typing is most reasonable and has the strongest arguments. Ideally it's like math/science. Never changing your opinion, your tendency to declare things without good evidence (and then refuse to learn why it is not good evidence), to not do the arguments of others any favors, even to participate (?) in spamming ... All of these things makes it hard to take anything you say seriously. Honestly I'm not sure if you're serious most of the time myself. Sometimes I think you're just really young though.@thedude "apart from Bonita's ridiculous rant about Allen being INFP which is a joke" If you call me ridiculous then you're calling ridiculous to everyone who has their own theories about typing. And it's not a joke because I've spent my time thinking about it and taking my time posting my thoughts here; briefs but mine after all. I think for myself, unlike you who weight other's ideas too much without pondering if they're telling you lies and scamming you at the same time. You're too easy to sway, which is a higher sin than having and ruling a personal stance like I do.This very interesting discussion (apart from Bonita's ridiculous rant about Allen being INFP which is a joke) has led me to consider INTP over INTJ as a second choice. While I still see Lynch as INFP (although Butterfly's arguments made a lot of sense on his page), IMO Kubrick just seems to use Ti, Ni and has inferior Fe. ISTP just fits perfectly.No, I meant with someone like David Lynch, when making Eraserhead, he was into the more ''physical'' aspects of movie-making, such as building the sets and prop, plus having an eye for how lightning would create certain effects without needing to use expensive special effects. This is something you would expect more from an SP because they're more hands-on, but if Lynch is an NP, he was one really well learned in the more SP aspects of film-making, one usually leaves for others (thus being able to create such a visually accomplished movie like Eraserhead without a very large budget). So, this is what I meant by ''craft''.@bob, what does being "good at your craft" or "craftsman" have to do with SP over NP? I've seen you make similar arguments many times, but I think that NP's are the most likely to master a craft to be used as an outlet for creativity.Stanley Cube-Brick is no squareWoody Allen is still INFP to me no matter what you say and/or accomodate.http://sites.psu.edu/krb5476/wp-content/uploads/sites/8471/2014/04/etc_woody26_950.jpegYeah, he just moves from one hectic production to the next. He has made about a movie every year since the 60s-70s. That's something of a physical feat!You mean workaholic as in insanely creative?Childish about love/human relationships. You can read my descriptions of Eyes Wide Shut on this page, and it was to demonstrate this "childishness" that I brought up the cheating. I also disagree Allen's necessarily Ne, though I see how it might seem like it at first. And INFPs can love jazz, but being a workaholic who likes playing clarinet - that's a lot of Se.LOL neither Kubrick or his movies are childish at all. And Woody Allen is playful not childish, and clearly a Ne user too. Cheaters in his movies has nothing to do with him being INFP or not. And INFPs love jazz too.Nooo, but I've watched a ton of his movies, documentaries, read about his life, quotes, etc. He display a lot of the same childishness about love that Kubrick does in Eyes Wide Shut, for example. His characters will cheat a lot, but have this one person they keep coming back to or something. Most INFPs would be horrified, lol. He's also a pretty cynical, pragmatic workaholic who plays clarinet as a hobby and believes in Freudian psychoanalysis (Tertiary Ni).Woody Allen is not ISTP but INFP. Have you watched his stand up comedy on YT?*"Anyway, I can just make him fall on his head after the chicken and wake up in the factory since the randomness does not break from the weirdness aesthetic I'm developing! Fantastic!"Oh and in my previous post when I was talking about Si and Te as a weakness for NPs, that's just for NFPs of course. >.< I guess NTP directors, who have Ti, are a bit better than NFPs directors in seeing things through. I mean people like Woody Allen (ISTP) are extremely productive, but Fe as a weakness means you're going to have trouble with the people skills part of movie-directing, I guess ... This might explain why many directors who otherwise seem rather clearly, imo, to be INTP (like Peter Jackson and Christopher Nolan) are still "a bit too warm to be INTPs" just like FP directors (like David Lynch and Nicolas Winding Refn) may seem a bit "too fierce" to be INFPs - successful people are usually very balanced examples of their type. On the other hand, of course, you have someone like Stanley Kubrick who compares his actors to cattle and is infamous for being incredibly demanding. >.< Anyway, I definitely agree that Lynch *may* still be an INFP. He's a very hard case. Still, as I've written a lot about before, I think the total impression clicks better with ISFP. I think an NP would be bored thinking about things that are as incredibly nonsensical as what you describe all day long. I think Lynch is more like, "Okay, if you eat that chicken that is going to make me feel really weird ... And then I have this idea for a factory scene which also makes me feel weird ... Man, these sensations of weirdness are interesting! Anyway, I can just make him fall on his head after the chicken since the randomness does not break from the weirdness aesthetic I'm developing! Fantastic!"WWOOW Just chill, maaan.......... Jesus. Watch the rest too.I've watched The Kill, Paths of Glory, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon and Fullmetal Jacket. Next time you try to be a smart-ass, make sure you're at least smart, otherwise you're just an ass.You talk and tallk about him and I bet you haven't watched any of his movies.#butterfly, Yeah, I was thinking something thinking like that. From what I understand from his interviews, Kubrick's process is different though. He's like: let's take this story/book and reduce it to its basics (Ti) + let's make this basics great through ''the language of cinema'' (Se+Ni). But Lynch by comparison doesn't seem like Kubrick. I mean, I can't see Eraserhead being done like that. It seems like an example of just trowing crazy ideas together: chicken that bleeds when you try to eat it! check, I know, a woman signing from inside an radiator! Kubrick also doesn't seem like the kind of person walking around day-dreaming about people heads falling and being taken to a pencil factory, and then thinking he should make a movie from this. So, Lynch could still be an NP even if they both make very well crafted movies, but just one who really learned his craft.I don't think an SPs work will necessarily look coherent and an NPs work necessarily look improvised though! For example David Lynch almost feels improvised a lot of the time whereas Tim Burton movies are usually very coherent.@bobnickmad You are my pet now.@bobnickmad Can I call you bobovska from now on?Hmmmm, I've never really thought about this, but it's an interesting question. Just speculating, and not being sure I understand the wavelength you're on here, speaking both from experience and reading about NPs - I think NPs are the ones who tend to have the great elevator pitches. Like "let's do a dream heist movie" or "Johnny Depp with scissors for hands finds love with Winona Ryder". When the NP starts working though, they can't keep focus and continue adding and adding new cool ideas within their cool idea. So there's bound to be plenty of high-concept segments ("let's do several layers of dreams with action scenes going on in all of them at the same time!") and even the visuals will tend to be very "wacky idea"-based like when you see the charmingly, disarrayed colorful visuals of for example a Dario Argento movie. It's like he's going over the set saying, "Let's do this, and let's turn that around, and let's throw a bucket of paint on that wall! And let's this, let's that!" I think the challenge for the NP will be to balance their "idea machine"-like quality with routine (Si) and see-through (Te). For example Tim Burton (even to a fault) is someone who seems to have a pretty good handle of Si as he, almost to a fault, has developed a formula to keep himself in check. On the other hand you have someone like GRRM with Si-problems (just adding and adding new stuff) and Nicolas Winding Refn with Te-problems (a nervous wreck).@bobnickmad And it's amazingly stupid to say let's compare SP to NP or NT director because no one can tell you they are those types. Study Kubrick alone, his persona and movies and no more. R Scott is 100% ISTP tho."I wanna know better how an SP and an NP would differ in how they approach film-making itself". Study ISTP Ridley Scott then.Anyway, maybe that's one difference: both types would relay on deviations from what was intended in the beginning, but an NP work would carry its improvisational nature on its face, while an SP work will end up looking effortlesly coherent, like giving the impression there was no improvisation in the first place. Again, I'm thinking Michelangelo and people like that.The point is, just because someone is ISP it doesn't mean he can make conscious use of its intuition, just that he's over the average. Still, I wanna know better how an SP and an NP would differ in how they approach film-making itself.Not the ''depth'',''meaning'' and stuff like that, which is frankly very subjective and can make us look silly, but the way they bring all those elements that make a movie together in a whole.? Yeah, good point Butterfly. I think you can compare Kubrick to someone like Michelangelo for example. There's clever Ni symbolism in there: such as the monkeys throwing the bone followed by the space ship, which in a quick sequence describes the advancement of humanity through its tools, and its used in documentaries about space or development of humanity because its makes its point so well. It's similar to Michelangelo style, such as God pointing his finger at Adam. So, I can see a genius SP making very good use of its Ni, like in the case of Michelangelo and others.Lower Fe and Fi can look very similar. But he's a P type anyway, so there's no point. Look, everyone can make a movie provided they have the ambition, work ethic and skill necessary. But depending on the type they'll approach movie making differently. A Ni-dom would start from his overall idea he has with the movie, what he wants to accomplish in a singular but broad stroke, and then use the most efficient means to accomplish.But from interviews with him and people that worked with him, that's not Kubrick. He took a step by step approach, dealing with each scene in a perfectionist manner, and than arriving at the end result. So he from the trees to the forest (as opposed from the forest to the trees INTJ), and perfectionism over efficiency. So, he's a P type. What it's more interesting question to me is: how does an SP approaches film-making compared to an NP.From what I can tell there is very, very little sincere emotion in his movies. It's like he doesn't care what his movies are even about. He just takes wildly different genres and gives them the regality of his style with careful visuals, sound and little, mysterious references like you see in a lot of painted art - like Raphael's painting of Athens where Plato is pointing up and Aristotle is pointing down, which symbolizes their philosophy. If anything, imo, he shows Inferior Fe in his last movie, Eyes Wide Shut, as I was writing before, which is his first movie that doesn't seem to be completely in quotation marks emotionally. It's about a man wandering through New York at Christmas and seeing all kinds of ways to organize love/sex and eventually realizing that he prefers the simplicity of married life with his wife simply asking him if he "wants to fuck" as the happy ending. A lot of critics have accused it of being a childish treatment of the topic whereas I've heard it said that Kubrick thought of it as his most important movie or something.And what if we talked about Fi vs Fe with Kubrick?You can capture the feeling ''motion'' in a photography, if you're good at it I guess, the same way you can do in sculpture, painting or other static arts. You just need to have a certain ability. But yeah, different types would be into photography for different reason. Anyway, the way he talks about movies scenes and photography seems to be a Ti aesthetic, rather than Se or Si: the way something is positioned in the picture, getting the perfect balance between the elements, stuff like that. Anyway, I get the impression that Kubrick wanted to be a film-maker all along, he just thought doing photography is a good way to start, because it helps with framing the scenes of a movie later, so it's good practice.INTJ with a strong P preference. Def an INXX: too muck liking of INXX writers (Nabokov, Burgess, King). Strong F too; very sensitive. It's all so complicated with him...SJ's generally take the most photos though, then post them on Facebook as if anyone caresOmg. Si isn't about "remembering the past" or whatever. I've read about it and it's complicated. It's like when a thing or place has a certain "feeling" to it. Photos are good at evoking certain moods, which is why Si is good for photography. Se is all about action, motion, whatever. Photography is totally static. It has nothing to do with Se.Photography as in taking pictures of your life to commemorate it, is a very Si thing, but that wasn't what he did.@bobnickmad Photography has jackshit to do with Se. It's all about Si.Just listen to it and change your votes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa-KBqOFgDQI have seen the movie and I think it's quite INFJ-ish. But yeah I am quite sure he is a T.He's pretty clearly INTJ. @HDr have you watched the movie? have you ever met true ISTPs in REAL life? do you know who Peter Sellers is? are you an iNtuitive? i crossed the line there XDHe's pretty clearly both N and PAn ISTP could never EVER pull off a movie like Dr. Strangelove. There i said it.I think talking about on which types are more likely to be photographers is getting us sidetracked, since it doesn't have much to do with Kubrick as a person. Like bobnickmad said, having aesthetic/visual interests doesn't necessarily preclude one type over the other. Regardless, Kubrick's behavior seems more P than J, which is why I think ISTP is more likely. A lot of people forget that despite his perfectionism, he liked to take his time on projects and not rush things. Compare with an INTJ like, say, David Fincher. Similar kind of perfectionism, but a much more bussiness-like attitude with more focus on efficiency.*I shouldn't have said ''any SP'', I should have said ''strong aesthetics doesn't imply Se necessary''*I shouldn't have said ''any SP'' as you didn't imply that, I should said visual proeficiencyWhile do agree that overall photography is more SP than N (and N might find it creatively restricting), saying that any SP must have strong aesthetics -potography or not- and N types not, it's just putting SPs on a pedestal. Se is good at being in the moment and noticing the full picture sensory wise, but it doesn't give one aesthetic sensibility -like being Ti doesn't make one smart, or Fi doesn't make one a poet. Nevertheless I do think Kubrick is SP, but not because his movies excel visually. You could argue for example that his aesthetics are very Ti-Ni, in the way they put an emphasis on Precision in shots (Ti) and a Mystical, harmonious kind of feeling (Ni). But all the functions can have their aesthetics, all types can be interested in visuals the same way any type can be interested in music and thus excell at it if they develop their skill.I don't talk to trolls. OoooppsI hope you won't be mad at me, Bonita^^, but I think you are focusing on small details that could be connected to almost any type. Napoleon is a big historical figure and of universal interest. Contrary to someone like Tarkovsky, Stanley Kubrick is also someone who enjoys to pick topics that have very little to do with him as a person, like Clockwork Orange, The Shining, 2001 etc. This in itself I think is suggestive of the same kind of detached pragmatism you see in your ISTP friend not getting the point of taking pictures. On the other hand you will likely find plenty of INTJs who are not interested in photography. An ISTP who picks up a camera is also likely to be considered more "talented" than an INTJ who does, because photography is a very Se-heavy thing to be doing. It's likely the best photographers will be SP types.And his obsession with Napoleon the ENTJ?I told in my previous post that later I found someone else online saying the same about many other ISTPs. I've written before here why I think Kubrick is INTJ. Just wanted to add my sweet discovery. So you still think he's ISTP?So because one ISTP you know doesn't like photography, what exactly are we supposed to think?Excuse my redaction tonight, but I was thinking this... Kubrick started as photographer, an excellent ont. The 100% certified INTJ I know is fond and somewhat talented with nature photography. But the ISTP I know never takes photographs, literally never; doesn't even like to carry stuff around. I find all this so funny because... it's a minor detail but it's very telling. And the INTP I know goes a step further and says: "I don't understand why people take photographs". I take hundreds when on vacation. This has nothing to do with IXTPs not being talented filmakers, but photography pure and alone. I thought this is a bit random; but no, because then I found someone online saying the same about ISTPs, that they never take pics. You could think ISTPs because of Se would like it, but no; they don't have that drive at all. As insane as all this sounds I wanted to post it.I don't think you have to strain your brain too much to figure out that an introverted intuitive (IN) is likely to show usage of introverted intuition (Ni).I'm not saying Kubrick was as unhealthy as Dick, I was just using Dick as an example of my theory. And although it would logically make sense for the 3rd function to be stronger than the 6th function, many people have written about the phenomenon of having a strong/developed 6th function and relating strongly to descriptions of one's 6th function.There's no way Kubrick was unhealthy like Dick, he had his quircks but in interviews he sounds very sane.I also don't see why it's easier to make appeal to a 6th rather than a very well 3rd function.I'm still leaning towards ISTP for Kubrick because he seems to have too much Se (as butterfly pointed out) for it to be his PoLR, but I'm not ruling out INTP. I think a good real-life example of an INTP in a Ne-Ni feedback loop would be Philip K. Dick in his 1970s period.I haven't yet worked out how dom-tert loops would occur in this system, but I plan to develop the theory further.I have a theory that the 6th function serves as a sort of "wall" between the top and bottom halves of the function stack, and as such it sometimes takes over the third function's duties. In INxPs, this manifests as a Ne-Ni feedback loop, which is why so many INxPs are great at storytelling and worldbuilding. However, because the Ni is externalized through another perceiving function (Ne) instead of a judging function (Te/Fe), its abstract ideas are not turned into concrete plans that can be executed, as they are in INxJs. As such, unhealthy INxPs can get stuck in a perpetual loop of pure intuition with no sensing until their Si wakes up and snaps them out of it like a splash of cold water.I don't know. I'm still leaning towards ISTP, but I could see INTP with developed 6th-place Ni.@scotty -_- His voice, spirit and intelligence turn me on, so he must be an INTJ.What you posted is all Se though. :P He's just straightforwardly telling exactly what happened.lol, so much bickering about whether an INTP is an ISTP or INTJ. Watch this, he is clearly INTP, Ti-Ne, intuitive, perceiving, however you want to look at it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsSV6yZZIVkI personally consider Eyes wide shut to be one of his best. And it's a very faithful rendition of Schnitzler's story too (unlike The Shining).http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-rolling-stone-interview-stanley-kubrick-in-1987-20110307?page=5 Here he talks about Fullmetal Jacket, a very S movie compared to high N of 2001 or Clockwork Orange. Reading it all, it seems that what matters for him foremost is ''accuracy''. In this and other interviews (such as for Barry Lyndon) the way he looks at film-making seems to be: take the material, reduce it to the essential structure by throwing away all it's irrelevant, and then find the best why of doing the movie scene by scene.Sure, an INTJ could think like that but in the context of some greater concept for the movie where the scene it's relevant in the context of a the overall concept, for Kubrick the method is more down-to-the-top than top-to-bottom. I think Fullmetal Jacket is a good example, because it's a late period movie, yet devoid of most of the high caliber Ni we find in his golden period (Strangelove, 2001, Clockwork, Orange). And it's all about trying to make the movie as accurate as possible, over being concerned with an overall view point. So, his method is not top-down, but down-to-the-top: take each scene and find the best way of building it while being accurate to the time period and what you liked in the material. He cares about being emotional authentic and that sounds indeed like Fi on the surface, but I think this is just part in a bigger context of making the movie accurate: since ISTPs don't like bullshitting with emotion, yet they understand that emotion is important in a movie, so of course they don't want to bring fake emotionalism. But the context of accuracy is bigger: he spents allot of them on researching the more concrete aspects of that movie, the whole context in which the movie is made has to be accurate. It's not Fi, just a need for truthfulness that Ti-doms share as well. The point is, that I don't think one can make a convincing enough claim that this guy is a Ni-dom, except that his most important movies look like being made by a Ni-dom and that he said Intuitive claims at some time or another, because when it comes to how he approaches movies, it's a from the bottom to the top approach, with an emphasis on scene accuracy and scene setting over any overall theme. The fact that by starting from the little things he managed to make something so visionary that the most acclaimed Ni-dom directors can't even hope to aspire to, it's a testament to how he managed to over-come his type limitations, more than his type, but also to how dedicated he was to each project in particular and it's own specifics.It's mostly about how unnatural and unaccomplished the relationship between Kidman and Cruise - in the movie - was portrayed. But that's what the critics said.Eyes wide shut is adapted from Schnitzler's Traumnovelle. It is not supposed to be warm.You are getting smaller and smaller, I guess my INTJ arguments are winning lolISTPs don't give a fuck about emotions unless it affects them personally.ISTP hate phony fake emotions as much as Fi users due to the negative relationship they have with Fe.More than Kubrick I blame ice queen INFJ Nicole Kidman for making "Eyes Wide Shut" feel cold.He was striving for authenticity (Fi). You can hear Kubrick in The Shining "Rare Behind The Scenes Footage" saying to top actress Shelley Duvall: "IT LOOKS FAKE, IT REALY DOES. IT LOOKS PHONY". And he's really concerned about that. But again, I guess that's what movie directors say to all their actors lolThere is indeed a certain overall view towards humanity that might be Fi , that's one of the better comments you gave. But I'm not sure, it could be a 5w4 trait.You don't understand suppress Fe do you? The 'fell in love with the stories'' in the context I think indicates that for him it's mainly a question of interest firs and foremost, rather than a more pre-well thought thing.''moods and feeling'' sounds indeed like higher F than inferior one on a surface reading, but you should take into account that there are ISTP musicians among other things, so they understand that moods and feeling matter in art.A certain color scheme or choice of lightning, a certain type a story and characters, gives a certain feel that gives that work of art it's identity, and ISTPs are fully capable of thinking of art like that. What I found in that quote it's that he said meaning and theme comes latter. You can't type someone based on what they look in a partner. I don't pretend those quotes are conclusive, but together they show a certain direction that fits with arguments give below.And "Eyes Wide Shut" was criticized for not being close or authentic to emotions, kind of cold. He failed there becaue tertiary Fi is not his forte, but he's obviousy interested in people, relationships and humankind as a whole to make those deep and political movies.When he chose The Shining to film he had a lot of trouble finding the right book to film, and he kept throwing them against the walls (according to witness) frustrated, angry, AKA EMOtional. Do ISTPs behave like that? No. They get angry and demonic but they always keep cool no matter what, unless they have a gun near lol. About your copy/pasta: Fi: "I just fell in love with the stories.", "It should be a progression of moods and feelings". INTJs highly appreciate intelligence in a partner more than looks: "why you fell in love with your wife: she's intelligent". Just look at Ridley Scott's (ISTP director) wife. Oh lol. I could go on.*''that for him it's NOT the Ni idea/theme/concept that drives the movie''. Sorry! I think the frustration of looking for that quote messed me up or something.*that for him it's the Ni idea/theme/concept that drives the movie but Ni adds to itDidn't find that one but I found some to go somewhat in that direction:''I can't honestly say what led me to make any of my films. The best I can do is to say I just fell in love with the stories. Going beyond that is a bit like trying to explain why you fell in love with your wife: she's intelligent, has brown eyes, a good figure. Have you really said anything? Since I am currently going through the process of trying to decide what film to make next, I realize just how uncontrollable is the business of finding a story, and how much it depends on chance and spontaneous reaction.'';''There is no deliberate pattern to the stories that I have chosen to make into films. About the only factor at work each time is that I try not to repeat myself.'';''“A film is - or should be - more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what's behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later.” So, this go along the way that for him is the Ni idea that leads the movie, but rather Ni adds to the movie. Whatever his type, he remains one of the most important geniuses in film-making, and an example of someone who created worlds, not just movies.I remembering there was a quote in which he said he doesn't make his movies with a particular theme in my, but I can't find it.I could have searched for it below but the admin deleted my older posts.Obvious Ni is obvious, cunt.Except that he's not a Ni-dom, so why bring the 6th function, when you can't prove that Ni is is the first one?Also, Leon Tsao explains in this video how your 6th cognitive function is strong. So Kubrick being INTJ has strong Ti (6th). Insn't that the coolest thing in the world? ARTICLE: http://leontsao.com/2016/06/08/6th-function-of-introverts-visual-reading VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dobNhGq2RkEI think his most Ti-dom movie might be Barry Lyndon. Really there's no message or vision put forward with that movie, and even there's one, it's very subtle. Instead it's all about how the scenes are constructed. I think an INTJ would make a more 'forceful' in meaning movie than that.There's also this subtle irony going through all of the movie.Didn't read through all of the discussion so far, but I think Kubrick is ISTP. The reason is that there is no Fi in his films. On the other hand, you can gradually see him getting more and more socially concerned/emotional - ending with Eyes Wide Shut which is about a man trying out different forms of love, in the end finding out that what he knows (normal marriage) is best. The happy ending of this movie, which otherwise has a Christmas setting to stress the family theme, ends with Kidman saying, "Do you wanna fuck?" or something like that. A lot of people were offended by the almost childish treatment of these heavy topics. Imo, all this only makes sense with Kubrick being a Inferior Fe user. Proceeding, his movies are very heavy on Se (it's all about the visuals) with lots of Ni-type mysticism like the monolith in 2001. You may have read Arthur C. Clarke's (INTP) novelization, but it's not considered the same story by Kubrick. 2001 is simply an "unclear", mysterious film, and if there is something directors like James Cameron (ENTJ) and Park Chan-wook (INTJ), even Godard (INTJ) have in common, it's clarity and directness. As for the Playboy interview, imo Kubrick sounds very similar to Woody Allen (ISTP). He's going on about the fact that we're going to die and how religion can't do anything for us in a rather straightforward way. I'll give him that he has very strong Ni, but I think it's easy to underestimate how intuitive a well-read Sensor in their 40s-50s can sound.And it explains better shining Fi.I know one ESFP afraid of flying and he has beard and bushy eyebrows just like Stanley had so I think ESFP.Strong argument here. I know an INTP afraid of flying. Hence why I believe Stanley must have been INTP...And fear of flying is very INXJ. I know one INFJ and one INTJ, both afraid of airplanes.His voice and spirit, I meant.His lovely Fi shines through in his interviews. He's INTJ.Well that makes it easier for me. He's definitely an INTP.If you haven't already, i recommend you to watch this interview of him : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsSV6yZZIVkAlso, ultra-developed Ti can sometimes seem like Ni from an external perspective.If anything, an INTP would generate and fine-tune the ideas while the INTJ would take the ideas to the next level, as Ni is the function most focused with implementing abstract ideas. Se in general IS a lot less abstract. Bob Dylan generally wrote songs about reality. He wasn't all that focused with philosophical concepts.Arguments for INTJ because "not lazy" seem as bad as arguments for INTP because "genius". He is almost certainly an ISTP.You know the arguments are getting really good when we type based on laziness.What are you talking about? Kubrick didn't make that many movies, it took him forever to achieve a project. And ISTP directors like Woody Allen or Clint Eastwood are some of the most prolific directors you can think of.No way he's a Ti-dom. A Ti-dom would be far too lazy to achieve nearly as much as he did. INTJ.Can you at least try to respond to my post?Ti-dom but where is this Se? Since he's been brought up a bit recently, thought it'd be worth rehashing this discussion. Photography is NOT Se. It is not anything in particular. One's attitude to photography shows their preference for intuitive or sensing perception preference. Gink has the best post in this whole page (I haven't seen him elsewhere, a true one hit wonder it seems). His conclusion: "His focus seemed more to make a point with this picture than to display something physically interesting." Yes, exactly. You can ctrl+F to find his post but Kubrick is just plain intuitive.I could see him as ISTP. He once said, "Be suspicious of people who have, or crave, power. Never, ever go near power. Don't become friends with anyone who has real power. It's dangerous." This seems like more of an xxTP thing to say because an xxTJ would be more intent on gaining personal power (Te) at the expense of others (Fi), whereas an xxTP would be more suspicious of power (Ti) and would warn others about the dangers of power (Fe).@bobnickmad, if you take an ISTP and give them intellectual interests beyond what is normal for ISTP, wouldn't you kind of be talking about an INTP? I agree with the perceiver arguments but I'm not seeing Se at all. Even his interest in photography was expressed intuitively. I think that is very telling in how he took such an absurdly Ne approach to photography even in his teenage years.Also agree with Scotty that Te doesn't seem fitting with Kubrick. Te requires efficiency but Kubrick seems to sacrifice efficiency in favour of rigorous perfection. ISTPs aRe usually laid back and seem unconcerned but when it comes to the craft or art they like, their perfectionistic instincts kick in.I am confused here. Was Kubrick more concerned with the craftmanship of his film making and thus sought perfection in film making or he sought perfection in delivery of message he meant to relay? If former he is more likely an ISTP, if latter he can be an INTJ. I don't know for sure so please share your views. Personally K. doesn't seem much concerned with message of his films.Out of Ti, Te, Ni, Ne the one function I really think that he lacks is Te. I'm starting to appreciate the ISTP argument a bit more from a certain functions perspective (one which I don't agree with, but the reasoning is sound enough once you start there)@Ventus, I do think that his "directive" style (not directorial really) leans to J (not ISTP) Which is why I can't say he's a sure INTP. But a lot of that could be to something I've noticed in how the E/I nature of auxiliary functions can partially flip in stronger cases of E or I. Kubrick was obviously a very strong introvert, and he could be an INTJ whose Te has taken on traits of Ti, or an INTP whos Ne has taken on traits of Ni. I know this isn't really orthodox when it comes to functions but something I've noticed in people. Like I know someone who you can really just see Fi-Ni but they're definitely a P-type in every definition of the word, and thus is an INFP to me. And a few ENFP who seem to use Fe as much as Fi, but again clear perceivers.Yes, I agree too. Kubrick is hard to type at the very least, and this impasse is indicative of that. Though I still see INTJ, thank you Speed Gavroche for your well-reasoned rebuttals."This discussion is a muddle now. " I agree. I don't think I will argue more until I have some other insight or see something truly new on this page. Though, it was interesting; I'm honoured to have crossed the sword with you gentlemen.How about we organize what we know about SK, his early life, his artistic inclination, his N-ness &/or his S-ness etc. and then dismantle it and look at it with another angle without preconceptions?.This discussion is a muddle now.ISTP is a very directive type, so ccan look J, and the Ti-Ni loop can make them look N. Though, being playful and energetic in his childhood point SP, not NJ.If we're going letter-by-letter I think it's clear that he's very J in his directorial approach and very N in that he's highly abstract and conceptual.The question is if he is more S or N, and more P or J. But we can see that he was more concrete and playful. So, ISTP.This discussion has turned into reiterations at this point. To be the debate remains between INTJ and ISTP with arguments weighing in favour of INTJ. Any type can be bookish, as types don't define broad interests and behaviors of individuals. So all of that is purely anecdotal with possibility of error in perception.Are you going to keep repeating the same thing about books? Is the first 19 years of his life your only argument? I've never been bookish, am over 19, and I'm an INP. But in those 19 years, he was doing intuitive photography, exploring the world of intuitive modern art, and playing the intuitive game of chess, and like a lot of INT moreso than ISTP, a social outcast.I'am an ESTP and I'm quite bookish mmyself. But Stanley K was focused on sensory things with a distaste for books in his prime youth. He truly started reading books at 19, when his Ni was growing. ISTP.I still see him as a bad-tempered perciever. I didn't know about that photography example but that would show Ne, as well as how he was ideologically non-imposing with his works, leaving things more open to interpretation. INTP can be extremely nitpicky about wanting things a certain way, and it's from a different basis than INTJ. INTP are logical nitpicks and INTJ are nitpicky about the perception. Introverted functions are the nitpicky ones so it's Ti-nitpick vs Ni-nitpick. I'm not really sure what kind of nitpick he was based on reading anything, but saying that he wanted things a certain way is not evidence for Ni at all.@gink, good that you brought up the photography thing. I tried to say something about that earlier but you really explained it much nicer. Also, Woody and Clint are ISTP which is why their focus is on aesthetic, so I don't think that goes against INTP.Saying that photography and distaste for reading books points to Se is not a very good argument. It’s true that, on average, those are more Se traits. But if you buy this argument, you need to take into consideration that, when Kubrick was younger, he was as much into photography as he was into chess. And chess is, by far, more an N thing than an S thing. The problem with this argumentation is the ‘on average’. Because, on typology, what truly matters is not the activity itself, but the way a person faces this activity. For example, I know a ISFP who is a voracious reader. Because of that you may say this person is N. But reading for this ISFP has nothing to do with speculative thinking; it’s a compulsive activity, similar to physical exercise. This ISFP reads only for the pleasure of briefly picturing the images literally described in the book. For this person, it’s not interesting to think extensively about what was said, to extract meaning of the book, to reach ‘the point’. It’s about living that moment. N types, on the other hand, face activities in an opposite way. For example, think about an N who is into photography. This person will have little interest in taking pictures for aesthetical reasons, but will prefer to take ‘symbolic’ pictures, pictures that lead to speculation rather than contemplation of physical features, pictures that communicate something beyond what you see with your eyes. And this seems to be Kubrick’s case. Not only with his movies, but in his photographic works. Several years ago I downloaded a pdf with some of these works and there is one picture there that stuck with me over the years. I have in my computer, but I can’t find it online, so I’ll have to describe it. Kubrick went to a zoo and took the picture of a monkey behind the bars of his cage. Then he went inside the cage and took the picture of the visitors staring at the monkey outside the cage, but because he was inside, the bars appeared in front of these people. Then Kubrick placed the caption “How a monkey looks to people” in the first picture and placed “and how people look to a monkey” in the second. Get it? His focus seemed more to make a point with this picture than to display something physically interesting. Despite his perfectionism with every single aspect of his movies (more of a J trait, very common in INJ filmmakers like Cameron and Fincher and uncommon in ITPs like Eastwood and Woody ) which leads to aesthetically pleasing images, his films followed the same path of prioritising speculation. To me this is N really.@Speed Gavroche: I couldn't play the video. :( But if what you describe is accurate and there are no contradicting signs of INTJness, it's a good point in favor of ISTP, though not a dealbreaker because young children tend not to embody a single type very strongly since their brain is still maturing. In my opinion type doesn't become clear until roughly age 15-20 (since Erikson's identity stage isn't over until then) but that's merely speculation on my part. @scotty: The two most bookish people I know are INTP and ENFP, so I'm not so sure that's accurate. Funnily enough, I also know a really bookish ISTP. Moving beyond the anecdotal, I think using someone's bookishness as evidence for a particular typing is circumstantial at best.NJ's are much more into pleasure reading than NP's from what I've seen. NP prefer shiny objects, but not as much as SP.Can't refind it. But look at this vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR-loS9MHww In his childhood, SK was playful and energetic, and also cerebral and analitycal. So, Ti and Se, and by the age of 19 he started reading books and develop his Ni. Textbook ISTP. Not INTJ.Also, as to the photography thing, again David Fincher (INFJ) was making films even as a little kid and he doesn't seem to have been bookish, also, anecdotal: I know a tested adult INFP who never has read books for pleasure. I admit that's atypical for a N type but you can't call the S/N on that alone.@Speed Gavroche: I agree that Eastwood isn't the "stereotypical cowboy" but is interested in making movies more meaningful and spiritual than that. So are other great ISTP filmmakers like Woody Allen and Ridley Scott. But what those three have in common that Kubrick does not is a down-to-earth, adaptive attitude and flexibility/openness to others' (valuable) modification of their vision. By contrast Kubrick is much more rigid, inflexible, and symbolic/mystical to the point that he's not down-to-earth or realistic, in fact he said magical realism, mythology, and fantasy capture his sense of reality better than realism does. Also Enneagram type can't explain away everything related to Ni dominance, an ISTP 5w4 might have more developed Ni and perhaps even a Ti-Ni loop but will still be Ti-Dom, and I don't see Kubrick as Ti-Dom.I've seen a video where he is filmed with Jack Nickolson (ESTP) they actually seemed very similar, but SK just being more introvert."being into photography doesn't make you a sensing type. " No, but when at the same time you reject theory and books, that make you a Sensor. And INTPs are not less bookish than INTJs by any mean. But ISTPs are. And I agree with impecable: INTJs (but also ISTPs) are more driven and focused than INTPs. And SK's Ni is obvious. That's why INTJ makes more sense than INTP. But ISTP makes more sense than INTJ. About Eastwood, keep in mind that as ISTP as he is, he doesn't relate to the cow-boy caricature he played in movies, and was interested with making movies more spiritual and meaningful than that. Also, Clint E is an 8w9 Sp/Sx while SK was a 5w4 So/Sx, and that change a lot of things about how they can think, act and look superficially, even if they share the same MBTI type.* Also it should go without saying that any comments of mine in disagreement with you aren't an attack on you. I disagree with you on just a couple of instances otherwise I admire most of what you post here. So I'd rather have us discuss things meaningfully instead of going on useless tirades. Cheers!1) Niels Bohr isn't even Ni-Ti loop, he is a perfectly Ni-Fe-Ti INFJ. 2) Witt is an Ni-dom to say the least, again not INTP for sure. 3) You have been biased for NTPs on more than a few occasions which is fine but would be better if you actually argue your case instead of sour comments. 4) You show clear bias against Ni in your second comment which I fail to understand. And no Ni isn't particularly associated with creativity but Fi is. However Ni, Ne deal with mental framework and not content so different types can be creative in their own ways. Your way of arguing however insists that all creative types must be Ne types, which is true in many instances but not all. 5) On topic: I would like to see how you define Ne against Ni and how you see Kubrick as an Ne type and not an Ni type. 6) I appreciate if your replies are devoid of sourness and concern with topic at hand. If you disagree with any