#function comparison

-------------------

I suggest you review the S/N parts of the study guides because you haven't grasped what these cognitive processes are really about. I can't help you refine an idea when it's off the mark. If you're trying to illustrate the difference between S and N, this is a poor way to do it, because this very simple situation doesn't require any significant cogitation. It's kind of like saying, "This is how Ss breathe and this is how Ns breathe". It's off the mark because everyone breathes and S/N doesn't impact breathing.

Furthermore, there isn't as big of a difference as you might think between the two examples. Everything you said for the N is pretty much implied for the S, assuming the person is a human with normal brain function and basic logic. If you asked the S why they did it, they'd give you the same explanation as the N, because you seem to be invoking cause and effect thinking - neither S nor N but T. You've just made the N seem like they suffer verbal diarrhea, unable to perform a simple task without having to mentally narrate every painful detail.

The first fundamental point that's missing from your example is the notion of "purpose": What are S and N used for? S and N are perceptual processes; they only apply in situations of perception and it's not clear your example fits. In psychology, perception is defined as the active process of interpreting sensory information for making sense of one's environment. To quote my Type Spotting Guide:

The heart of the [S/N distinction] is this: When the person looks out into the world, do they mainly see things as they actually exist in their concrete form (and the notion of potential comes later), or do they mainly see things in terms of images/ideals of what those things can/might eventually become (and the notion of factual reality comes later)?

If you're trying to illustrate this distinction, it hasn't come through.

A typical example of the distinction would be to compare what each cognitive process "sees" when it's looking at an object and trying to make sense of its situation. For example, let's have them looking at a house that has fallen into disrepair:

The Sensing process would see the object exactly for what it is, just the plain facts: a house in disrepair.

The Intuitive process would imagine things such as what the house used to be at its peak or how it could be restored to greatness, etc.

The second fundamental point that's missing from your example is the notion of time orientation. Because S perceives objects as they are, it is primarily oriented in present concrete reality. Because N perceives objects in terms of what they could develop into, it is primarily oriented toward future possible realities. Taking the above example:

- A Sensor would primarily see the house as being in disrepair. If you asked them whether they'd buy it, they'd think about whether it would be feasible to fix it up, in terms of material and logistical constraints. Their vision of the future is firmly grounded in the current concrete reality of the situation. "Feasible" differs from "possible" because it's centered on "doable" rather than "conceivable". Of course, questions of whether they like the house (F) or whether it is strategically advantageous (T) would also enter into consideration.

- An Intuitive also sees that the house is in disrepair and that there would be material and logistical constraints to consider. The difference is, if you asked whether they'd buy it, it would depend on their ability to conjure up an abstract image of what the house could be. Without an ideal to aim for or a promising vision to motivate commitment, they wouldn't move forward with it, even if material and logistical constraints were taken care of. The crucial point is, if their ideal/vision is clear and strong enough, they could move forward purely based on hope and faith (that things would work out), despite material and logistical constraints (that would hold a Sensor back).

The third fundamental point is whether the cognitive process has an extraverted or introverted orientation (Se vs Si vs Ne vs Ni), which could significantly impact a person's appetite for risk. The fourth fundamental point is the exact stack position of the cognitive function, which could significantly alter its overall degree of influence. The fifth fundamental point is how the cognitive function is interacting with the other functions (type dynamics), especially any functions above it in the stack, which could significantly alter or even distort perception.

Every functional stack has both a Sensing and an Intuitive function, which means every person has the capability to see the plain facts as well as envision what could potentially be done with the plain facts. What personality type is getting at is the individual's dominant or preferred mode of operation, generally, the mode that is automatic or tends to come first when a person is faced with the challenge of understanding any given situation.

And finally, the most complicated factor to take into consideration is human psychology's many other processes, especially individual will. There is always a possibility that an individual chooses to go against or override their dominant/automatic personality settings because of being influenced or pressured by unpredictable factors, such as extreme circumstances or mental/emotional dysfunction. As such, type is more easily identified by longer term patterns of behavior rather than one-off situations of the kind you're invoking.

1) In type theory, all perception functions are irrational because they do not require any reasoning to process information, and all judgment functions are rational because they all require reasoning to process information.

2) In type theory, all introverted functions are subjective, and all extraverted functions are objective. Subjective is not equivalent to personal, although, to be fair, people (myself included) often use the two words interchangeably, so it’s easy to get confused. 

“Personal” means that you are viewing the situation through “psychological lenses”, e.g., in terms of how it makes you feel, how it affects your body/mind, how it changes your plans, etc. Your sensations, feelings, ideas, and plans all “belong” to you and no one else. You basically generate them for your own purposes. No one can ever know exactly what your personal experience is because no one can ever wear the exact same set of psychological lenses that you possess. This is the basis for claiming that every person is unique.

“Subjective” means from the vantage point of where you are standing. There are many possible vantage points to stand on. The vantage point doesn’t “belong” to you because you’re not technically generating anything personal. You could easily move to a different vantage point, and someone else could just as easily come stand where you were standing to see what you were seeing. The picture of a situation may shift dramatically when you change a vantage point and new facts get revealed. This is the basis for claiming that one is able to get closer to objective truth by incorporating more vantage points. The word “objective” refers to universality, i.e., the things that are always true and/or don’t change significantly with vantage point.

Thus, personal is always subjective insofar as it is seen from a particular and singular vantage point, but subjective is not necessarily personal. It is possible to change your subjective vantage point without substantially using/affecting your personal psychological lenses.

3) In type theory, T functions are considered to be impersonal because they do not utilize any psychological lenses to process information - they only use plain factual and empirical information to make judgments and draw conclusions. F functions are considered personal because they rely on psychological lenses to process information - they need to know how people feel in order to make judgments and draw conclusions. Accordingly:

Fe is rational, objective, inter/personal*

Fi is rational, subjective, inter/personal*

Te is rational, objective, impersonal

Ti is rational, subjective, impersonal

You make some assumptions that indicate you haven't properly examined the premise of your question. You say that cozy and accommodating are signs of a healthy F function. If you consider these behaviors healthy and therefore "good", then you are implying that it isn't good when people aren't cozy and accommodating, i.e., that they are unhealthy in some way. It's hard for me to agree.

It could be that cozy and accommodating are signs of a healthy F function. Or it could be that the person is only cozy and accommodating because they like you and want to make a good impression. In other words, it might be more about simple self-interest than excellence of character.

If you have a high need for cozy and accommodating relationships, then you are unconsciously primed to perceive these behaviors as good and the lack of them as bad. However, a person who isn't particularly warm with you, in the manner you expect, isn't necessarily a bad or unhealthy person. Different people have different ways of showing their care. If you are projecting your biases, as most people are prone to doing, making a subjective judgment about how "warm" someone seems to you doesn't necessarily reveal any factual/objective information about their character or type development.

Your question is complicated because it mixes together several important concepts: type development, emotional development, and moral development. These are separate issues and their interaction is very complicated.

On average, Fe types will not naturally be super warm to you unless they feel connected to you in some way, in terms of believing that their well-being is inextricably tied to yours. If they don't feel any real connection, they aren't going to be exceptionally warm beyond what they believe is the basic social duty to be civil and cordial, i.e., objective rules of respectful conduct that everyone should follow.

On average, Fi types tend to be more emotionally in touch with themselves than Fe types, thus, their warmth seems to emanate more naturally. However, their degree of warmth is tied to the degree to which they like you and/or the degree to which they feel responsible for your well-being. Subjective functions are much more specific and particular in their focus than objective functions.

Whether someone is emotionally distant has more to do with their emotional intelligence, which is learned. To be an emotionally warm person, one should first be emotionally OPEN enough to feel warmth, emotionally AWARE enough to let it compel action, and emotionally BRAVE enough to express it. Doesn't matter the type, when a person isn't very emotionally open, aware, or brave, their F function expression and development will certainly be very limited. That said, the lower the F function is in the stack, the less incentive there is to develop it beyond the typical limitations of the type or the "default" mode of the stack position.

Being an introverted function, Ti doesn’t do “outbursts”. SFJ outbursts are comparatively rare. NJs are more likely to have startling outbursts when they feel as though their Ni expectations, goals, or ideals have been unfairly dashed/thwarted. They lose proper Ni creative reflection on big-picture implications (and the accompanying impulse control) and then misuse low Se to dump all of their issues out into the world, sometimes in the form of controlling behavior (denial of reality), sometimes in the form of emotional outbursts (temper tantrum), sometimes in the form of destructive behavior (unhealthy surrender or resignation to powerlessness). 

Dominant Fe is a very strong deterrent to big outbursts because one is always concerned about destroying relational harmony and, in the case of egocentric Fe doms, losing face and social status. Therefore, it takes quite a lot to provoke an outburst from Fe doms unless they absolutely don’t care about the consequences of what you think and thus feel free to unleash on you. Ironically, they have a tendency to unleash on the person they love most if they feel confident that the person loves them unconditionally and can “take it” (this is of course an unhealthy dynamic). Being extraverted, ENFJ outbursts are usually related to Fe-Se loop that causes them to overreach to an extreme and then get thwarted, the consequences of which would look like the Ni-Se “outburst” of controlling behavior or a temper tantrum; they would try to control/blame you if they believe you are the cause of their problem.

An Fe-Ti-only outburst usually stems from hurt feelings; it is very difficult to provoke and would usually involve stepping all over their moral values to the point where they feel no choice but to retaliate/criticize out of self-preservation (i.e. you make harsh personal attacks on them that bait them into a conflict/argument). Under normal circumstances, they would tend to default to diplomatic or manipulative methods to resolve a conflict rather than brute force.An ENFJ who acts out of fear of losing someone or insecurity about being judged negatively wouldn’t be prone to big outbursts, they’d be prone to Ti grip, which would involve withdrawing and ruminating in circles on what’s “wrong” with everything, trying to figure out the cause but failing. If feeling very desperate, they might beg and plead and try to negotiate or create “logical” arguments to persuade, which is not really an “outburst”. If an ENFJ ever gets really violent, it is likely that they are a bully and have suffered abuse before and thus never learned any other way to get their need for affirmation met. 

I don’t know your ethnic background but, since this is a Chinese film, it is relevant to talk about Chinese culture. China has a long history because the Chinese have valued and upheld their cultural traditions relatively well, and they’ve been a consistently collectivist-minded society, so the conflict between social obligation and personal desire is a frequent theme in their storytelling. As far as I know, in ancient times, when you entered the “martial arts world”, you basically renounced your old life (even your biological family) and adopted a new family of various people who were voluntarily bound through oaths or brotherhood associations. A lot of people would romanticize this lifestyle because it seemed to exist completely outside the strict expectations of conventional Chinese society, but the reality was more like living in the wild west with no reliable rule of law - basically, a life for the lost souls. The relationship between master and pupil was the de facto replacement for the parent-child relationship.

One of the main themes of the movie is generational divide. You have the elder generation who is portrayed as experienced and wise, tireless protectors of legacies. However, despite the fact that YSL and LMB live very unconventional lives in the martial arts world, they are still quite constrained by broader social obligations. You have the younger generation who is portrayed as energetic and impetuous, overeager to grow up and forge their own path. However, despite their more modern sensibilities, they haven’t yet achieved the wisdom to see past the appearances of the people they wish to emulate or rebel against. You have Jade Fox, the outsider, whose actions bring these opposing forces into conflict. This theme already provides clues that the movie is likely to heavily involve Si (tradition) vs Ne (modernity), Ni (truth) vs Se (appearance), Fe (public) vs Fi (private), so this would inform me to pay attention to how these ideas play out through the character motivations.

I’d typed Shu Lien as an ISFJ because of her quiet presence, reliability (competent as the head of her private security company) and the fact that she’s duty-driven to the point of passivity (doesn’t act upon her feelings for Mu Bai because he used to be her late fiancé’s friend, implying Si-Fe’s adherence to external/collective obligations). What made you conclude that Fe is higher than Si?

YSL is not a particularly gregarious person, it’s true, which puts E into doubt. Keep in mind that she is older and has had plenty of time for her personality to “settle”, which for an extravert would involve more fully embracing their introverted side. One must also keep in mind that measures of the E/I dichotomy are sensitive to cultural factors because not all cultures are the same in what is defined as “normal” extraverted behavior and/or the amount of leeway given to individuals to express their extraversion fully. Having had a very long tradition of strict social hierarchy, Chinese people are often heavily pressured into and rewarded for conforming with social expectations. Because of this, they tend to be less expressive and less willing to be themselves openly because the social punishments can be quite harsh when one accidentally steps out of line. Don’t forget that FJs(Fe), particularly female ones, would be more likely to unconsciously conform to unspoken norms than other types.

One might focus on how “dutiful” and “passive” YSL is as she consistently puts aside her own feelings to fulfill her social obligations, however, viewing her through a modern (Western) lens might lead one to severely underappreciate just how unconventional a person she is for her time and place. Very few women could’ve lived the life that she lived successfully, let alone be so well-respected in a man’s occupation. IIRC, she took over the company from her father, however, this was not the most natural path for her to take, it could arguably be the least natural path. In Chinese tradition, daughters were ultimately not considered a true member of the family because their “job” was to get married and become a member of their husband’s family and caretaker of his parents. As a result, many parents were less invested in their daughters (than their sons) because they “belonged to someone else”.

YSL must’ve made a conscious decision to buck tradition and become a businesswoman because there undoubtedly would’ve been many opportunities to get married as well as much pressure to retire into domestic life upon her father’s passing. Also, in ancient Chinese society, business people were generally looked down upon. IIRC, although she was sad about her fiance’s death the way in which one is naturally sad about death, she didn’t seem particularly keen about getting married and my impression was that she was only doing it because she was getting older and finally starting to acknowledge her reality. The fact that she managed to resist the pressure for so long, and even seized upon an opportunity to live a drastically different sort of life that would bring her many obstacles and challenges from society, makes me believe that her Ne is higher than inferior. If she were really as passive as you suggest, she wouldn’t have been able to sustain the business.

This leads me to the second point, which is that she was largely able to be successful because she excelled at quickly earning people’s trust and keeping their respect over time (a must for a woman in her job), which requires a lot of social energy, social grace, and ability to assess and respect the needs of her clientele. One might argue that she could be “a well-trained ISFJ” insofar as her father helped her accumulate the experience necessary to do the job well and gave her the chance to earn the trust of clients. However, once her father was gone, she’d have to make new business contacts in order to keep the company thriving, which meant that the period of riding her father’s coattails would be very short-lived (especially if there were already senior males around in the company who could’ve easily taken over). There would’ve been plenty of skepticism and doubting of her qualifications from many directions. I argue that a competent ESFJ would handle such challenges better than an ISFJ because higher Ne tends to allow ESFJs to be optimistic and hopeful for a lot longer than ISFJs, not to mention that extraverts generally have more energy for uphill battles.

Another piece of evidence that Fe is off-the-charts was her expert handling of Jen Yu. She saw right through Jen pretty quickly, and what did she do? Instead of retaliating for the deception, she genuinely empathized, she made every possible effort to bring Jen back into the light despite the fact that she would receive no substantial personal benefit from this effort. She was the diplomat and peacemaker. She took Jen under her wing and tried to be a motherly figure for her. Given her own struggles of being an unconventional woman, she was able to think of alternative possibilities for how Jen could live the life she wanted without having to become a lost cause (good Ne use, less Si restriction). Perhaps there is a better way of saying this but, compared to ESFJs, ISFJs tend to be more petty because higher Si-Ti and lower Fe-Ne often means that they are more critical and less understanding of transgressions/deceptions from people they have already branded and remember as “bad” (though they might not act on their feelings due to be being introverted). Higher Fe and lower Si tends to grant ESFJs a more easygoing and forgiving attitude.

When you describe someone as “passive”, that’s fine, but in typing correctly, you have to be precise in giving a good explanation of which function the behavior comes from. If you mean passive in the “action” sense, such as not taking action quickly in response to things, then you are referring to E/I. Introverts tend to be more passive because they need more time to reflect and they can sit on discontent a lot longer. If you mean passive in the sense of not acting on one’s desires/feelings because of putting others first, then you are referring specifically to Fe. In other words, these are two different issues. 

She was not passive in the E/I sense because she was mostly on top of events whenever she could be, quick to respond to unexpected change, quick to think of ideas to solve people problems, and most importantly she had plenty of energy to work with and around people’s foibles. She showed no significant signs of inferior Ne but lots of inferior Ti in not thinking to advocate sufficiently for herself and her own needs. She was indeed passive in the sense that she devalued her own feelings for the sake of others, however, this tends to be true of all the FJs, therefore, this piece of evidence is not enough to prove ISFJ specifically, but only high Fe. In other words, you’ve convinced me that Fe is present but you’ve not convinced me of its exact stack position because the evidence you pick out lacks nuance and precision.

I’d thought Jen Yu was an ISTP. So at least we agree on SP. I’m going to make my case based on your guides, but I can definitely see her as an ESFP in a Se-Te loop and, as you always say, I’m happy to learn more.Jen Yu is the protagonist of the movie in all but top billing. She’s the one who moves the plot along by stealing the Green Destiny, she’s the one who gets flashbacks fleshing out her life and motivations, she’s the one who gets to appear in all the fight sequences, she’s the one who has her relationships with her mentor and her lover depicted onscreen (as opposed to Mu Bai), she’s the one whose characterization is better established and defined.

(As to lack of top billing, the Chinese movie industry is such that more revered and elder actors tend to be given top billing in advertising regardless of the actual size of the role they have in the story.)

You are quite correct that she is “the mover” in this story, which is basically what defines an extravert, not to mention that, of the extraverts, it is Se doms who are the constant movers and shakers. Introverts are less assertive and more reactive, they usually need to be prodded into action, they tend to be moved by the plot rather than the ones who move the plot. The fact that we independently agree on Se but disagree about the rest means that Se is probably the most obvious characteristic of her personality, which should make it a very strong candidate as the dominant/defining characteristic (Occam’s Razor). The evidence you’ve given actually argues against her being introverted and convinces me she’s extraverted.

She defies social structures, seeks to reinforce her independence, resists committing to relationships for the sake of a goal, is greedy, enjoys sensory stimulation, is good at mastering complex physical skills, wants to gather knowledge and experiences without restriction, is distrustful and temperamental, is called out for being reckless and arrogant, all of which is consistent with high Ti and Se.She’s more goal-driven/focused than adventure-seeking/sociable (Ti higher than Se) and more careless about other people’s feelings (lone wolf) than about the ramifications of her actions (Ni higher than Fe), so she’s an ISTP overindulging Se.  

She defies social structures? Agreed. High Fi/Ti tends to value individuality. You’ve convinced me that she is P, that’s it. She seeks to reinforce her independence? Agreed. High Se/Ne tends to value the freedom to live on one’s own terms. You’ve convinced me that she is P, that’s it. She resists committing to relationships for the sake of a goal? Agreed. Ps value personal freedom and as a consequence often put themselves first whenever freedom must be secured. You’ve convinced me that she is P, that’s it. She is greedy and enjoys sensory stimulation? Agreed. Signs of Se. You’ve convinced me she’s SP, that’s it.

She is good at mastering complex physical skills? Disagree. SPs tend to have natural talent in learning physical skills, it’s true, but this is not the same as “mastering complex physical skills”. Learning vs mastering are two different things. Different types display different learning patterns (i.e. the learning curve), and some types are much more likely to reach mastery than others. ESxPs tend to learn the fastest, only at the onset, because they are good at observing, imitating, and correcting beginner errors; however, their lack of patience means that they quickly plateau and hit a wall in their learning, prone to losing interest long before reaching mastery. ISTPs, however, are called “craftsmen” for a reason. Dominant Ti means they learn very slowly at the onset because 1) they must be self-directed in learning and make sense of the info in their own way, and 2) they value precision and accuracy so that mastery is built directly into their learning process. When an ISTP devotes themselves to learning something, it is assumed that mastery will be achieved (Ti-Ni). Their learning curve is slow and steady but accelerates dramatically later on. A very different looking pattern than ESxPs which looks good at first only to taper and drop off.

I argue that Jen was not a master nor does she even possess the mindset necessary for eventual mastery, and nowhere was that more evident than in her showdown with LMB as he bested her without any effort at all - he, the true master to be compared to, quickly revealed her shoddiness and fraudulence. Fs tend to learn more slowly and less effectively than Ts because they often suffer self-esteem issues that hold them back. They might compare themselves down against people who are worse than them in order to feel good (and avoiding comparing up in order to avoid feeling bad), and they are less willing to acknowledge the truth of their mistakes and flaws because it hurts them to do so - these tendencies mean that Fs have more trouble developing a realistic conception of their technical abilities. The nature of dominant Ti learning requires a person to frankly acknowledge errors and mistakes in order to learn effectively and this gives ISTPs a much more realistic conception of their technical abilities, so it’s not very easy for them to deceive themselves into believing that they’re better than everyone when there is obvious evidence to the contrary.

She wants to gather knowledge and experiences without restriction? Disagree. I agree that she wants experiences without restriction because that’s what Se wants, but I disagree that she wants knowledge. Knowledge and experience are two different things. Again, ISTPs are called “craftsmen” for a reason. When they devote themselves to learning something, they respect the craft because Ti-Ni learning requires one to have a deep appreciation of the true worth of the craft. Jen shows no such love and appreciation of the craft, rather, she only learned it because she saw it as an escape/meal ticket, not because she took pride in being a skilled master. This is a very strong sign that she thinks in the highly efficient and instrumental way of Te rather than the slow and appreciative nature of Ti. In other words, she only cares about martial arts for the practical benefits it brings her, and that’s another reason why she’s not a master. If she truly wanted knowledge and possessed the mindset required for mastery, then she should’ve jumped at the chance to let either YSL or LMB mentor her let alone the both of them, but she stupidly rejected both of them. ISTPs tend to listen to reason, they are not as irrational as she is.

She is distrustful and temperamental? Agreed. Distrustful is a sign of unhealthy Ni. Temperamental is a sign of emotional instability, and ISTPs are rarely accused of being emotionally unstable unless they are very angry about a very specific thing that remains unresolved. Her rebellion is quite understandable given that her life is basically about to end with the arranged marriage. I don’t blame her for overreacting when her family conspired to control her every move, but what’s her excuse for being so emotionally unstable once she’s free and on her own? Shouldn’t she be completely at ease once her goal was met? Doesn’t add up. She is reckless and arrogant? Agreed. Reckless is a sign of unhealthy Se, arrogant is a sign of unhealthy T. An ISTP can be arrogant it’s true, but they wouldn’t be arrogant with someone who is proven better than them. They take pride in their skill set and they cannot help but acknowledge when someone does something better, and they would want to learn from, not refuse such a person’s willingness to teach them. Her arrogance does not come from possessing true confidence in being self-sufficiently skilled (Ti) but from the false belief that she’s better than everyone else (low Te+Ni that compensates for Fi’s low self-esteem). ISTPs are not so irrational.

She’s more goal-driven/focused than adventure-seeking/sociable? Agreed. People frequently mistype ESFPs as ISTP because 1) they expect ESFPs to act like ESFJs because many ESFJs are mistyped as ESFPs, 2) ESFPs are not a well-understood type and people rely on stereotypes, and 3) Fi can make ESFPs stoic and Te can make them quite cold and aggressive when threatened. Fs with a tertiary T function often get mistaken as Ts by onlookers because they can have a very icy quality, as they use T to hide their F vulnerabilities. Your evidence actually convinces me that she’s not ISTP because they are generally not very ambitious or driven people, at least not in any conventional sense of these words. Jen is not going to look like a healthy ESFP because her life circumstances were extremely oppressive and she was forced to suppress the best aspects of her personality, which is going to twist her mindset and produce more frequent Te loop and Ni grip behavior.

She’s careless about other people’s feelings (lone wolf)? Agreed. When a person values freedom to live life on their own terms, they will find it difficult to care about other people’s feelings as long as they continue to feel restricted, i.e., obtaining freedom is the prime directive and they won’t be able to focus well on anything else until freedom is secured -> this supports dominant Se. 

I disagree with her being a lone wolf because I don’t think she really wants to be alone. Remember when she first met YSL, she was actually in awe because she romanticized the “martial arts world lifestyle”, so she wanted to make friends and step foot into that world, happy to have someone finally understand her deepest desires. However, there’s a difference between wanting to be alone because you have everyone breathing down your neck vs wanting to be alone because you are a true lone wolf. When she finally left her family and started roaming the reality of that martial arts lifestyle, I got the impression that she quickly felt lost and lonely, didn’t know what to do with herself, which wouldn’t bother an ISTP because it is natural for dominant Ti to be only responsible to oneself. However, when a Te type tries to live life with zero external structure, they do not cope well and you will likely see their worst qualities come through, which is what happened with Jen. 

And what did she do to combat her creeping negative feelings of being in over her head? She beat people up, for no good reason -> Te loop as a superficial way to boost “good” feelings and bury “bad” ones. ISTPs are not so irrational as to beat people up for no reason, in fact, being introverted, it usually takes a lot to bait them into conflict (inferior Fe), especially if they believe that you don’t stand a chance against them, not to mention that they have far less desire to prove themselves to anyone (inferior Fe). A true lone wolf has nothing to prove because they only live for themselves.

She doesn’t care about the ramifications of her actions? Agreed. True of all SPs who have undeveloped Ni. She’s overindulging auxiliary Se? I can only agree that Se is a significant problem but you’ve given no good evidence to prove that it is AUXILIARY Se. An unhealthy ISTP drifts aimlessly through life being completely useless to everyone including themselves (Ni loop). The path to growth for them is to develop Ti-Se, to learn and master a practical skill that allows them to become more useful while finding pride in themselves. The fact that Jen learning a technical skill made her into a decidedly WORSE person is an indication that Se is not the auxiliary function, and it also indicates a low T function because developing T-related skills does not make her into a better person as it should. Her path of growth does not indicate that developing S or T would solve her problems. If she were ISTP, her end game would be to become a “useful person to society” and join LMB and YSL in doing good (Fe), but that is not what happened. 

Perhaps the biggest indication for me that she is not ISTP is that no ISTP in their right mind would make the decision that she made at the end of the film, in fact, they would be more likely to consider such a decision to be completely baffling or ludicrous. However, the decision makes perfect sense for an ESFP if it is Fi and Ni she needs to develop; Fi in finally being true to herself (instead of just constantly reacting to external triggers) and Ni in finally knowing, at the deepest level of her being, what kind of person she really wants to be (after she finally feels the full weight of the destruction she has wrought). Her final decision cements what had been her motivation all along -> naive romanticism of Se-Fi.

Dark Cloud is an accidental, larger than life, laissez-faire, but fair-minded leader. He knows how to manipulate social perception to his advantage and ESTPs do this because they don’t want to do the dirty work of confronting problems directly - they talk a big game but have trouble wielding the sword. He and Jen work well together because they both desire similar things, and they don’t work well together because they exacerbate the extremes in each other’s personalities. He’s in it for love (Fe) but she’s in it for the personal experience (Fi). He’s in it for the thrill of transgressing societal norms (Ti) but she’s in it as a f*ck you to her dreary life (Te). Being Se dom, he is also a significant “catalyst” character who keeps events moving forward.

Jade Fox is revealed as the opposite of Jen because, once Jen finds her freedom, she does exactly what Jade Fox would never do despite all the years of molding and manipulating. Jade is a wounded animal who is trapped in a dark vision of life (cynicism and greed); Jen is propelled forward as she learns about the brighter side of life (love and freedom). Jade hides and hoards knowledge for herself because of an unnatural lust for power, very careful in everything she does because she understands the full implications of the knowledge she possesses and what would happen if people found out she had it; Jen shows her skills to the world because she is one with it, not hiding from it, and cares not who knows what she can do. Jade is calculating, never taking a step without planning the execution, easily stumped when plans don’t go accordingly; Jen is a natural improviser, winging everything and doing whatever she wants whenever she wants because she’s confident she can evade whatever negative things come her way. Jade is deeply vindictive; Jen only wants to move on. Jade plays the super long game, spending years posing as a governess and grooming an unsuspecting child; Jen has no discernible vision for what her future holds other than she wants to get away from what she hates in the moment.