# Star Trek Into Darkness character MBTI?



## Devrim

Only one I am remotely sure about is Spock,
He is the classical stereotype,
Type A,
INTJ


----------



## Cantarella

Am I the only one who typed Uhura as ENFJ? >.>

As for Kirk and Spock... ESTP and ISTJ. The perfect bromance.


----------



## Chaos_Wizard

Aquarian said:


> Actually, there's a _huge_ difference between human value systems and human emotions!


Well, perhaps we are not looking at this in the same way. I think of 'values' as 'ideals.' I do not mean to speak of values in terms of 'whatever someone happens to place importance on.' For instance, as a matter of fact, I do value logic (and so do the Vulcans, apparently). I also value ethical fabric, historical artifacts, and rare artistic masterpieces like the Mona Lisa. Yet to say that I value these things is not necessarily to speak of the 'values' that often concern 'feeling' types. For feeling types, values are instead often nonrational ideals - almost like intuitive notions of what is acceptable and what is not. Thus, values for feeling types often boil down to ethical standards of some form. Moreover, it does appear that these specific 'values' (as ethical ideals) do tend to be largely associated with emotion (as opposed to values in the more objective sense of 'whatever someone considers important'). For instance, if I value logic, that hardly has anything to do with emotion, clearly. Yet if I maintain a value that considers it wrong to kill unborn fetuses, one might say that this is largely tied to some type of emotional instinct of some form, such that it is not a rational, logical attitude or viewpoint. 

And so, if someone who held to this value were to be bombarded with logic (as is often the case), the natural reaction is not to argue that the interlocutor's logic is invalid, but instead to attempt to justify the value to a logical person in a way that downplays the importance of logic. (And oddly enough, this movie did a great job of contrasting "gut feelings" and "intuitive hunches" with brute logic, though gut feelings and hunches have more to do with intuition and less to do with values.) Hence, I really don't think it's a big deal to draw a subtle distinction between 'values' and 'emotions.' More often than not, the two are largely interwoven together. So I consider them synonymous in a way (at least when speaking about what people think is the 'right thing' much of the time). Perhaps we can just say that values essentially boil down to some emotional basis, and so I can just skip to the chase (and not beat around the bush) and just speak of what's really going on. It's not really values; it's emotion. And hence, values (as emotions) are nonrational and don't favor well when logically scrutinized. I've come across tons of feeler types who maintain odd emotional value standards in arguments and conflicts (who stand fairly stubbornly to their own viewpoints and opinions) who yet cannot come up with any great logical reasons to explain why they feel so strongly about this or that stance they have taken on any given issue. 

And thus, as I've already said, Spock is not a character with these emotional values. He's a bit cold, he's a bit naive with respect to that aspect of humanity. (In much the same way, he's very much like Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory. Sheldon is clueless when it comes to many social cues. He doesn't know when to hug someone, when to offer a compliment, or when to smile. He's just like a robot with incredibly intelligent mind who doesn't get basic interpersonal habits and gestures (and to be honest, neither do I most of the time). And guess what? Sheldon is almost universally regarded as an INTJ (a quintessential one, at that). So you see, he and Spock share many characteristics. Spock is so driven by logic and rational analysis throughout the movies that he cannot easily understand the gut instincts and values of others humans. Kirk has to constantly try to drill some of this into his head. It's like trying to get an android to understand why killing humans is wrong (and if you want to know what that's like, watch the attached clip). To put things bluntly, I don't think Spock would understand why abortion is wrong. The character - based on the way he come across in the movie - would likely want to know 'why?'. And I highly doubt such a rational individual would be satisfied by the real impulses that drive people to feel such things are wrong. It's just nonrational values. 








> When I use a grounded theory approach drawing on and coding participant-observation and other qualitative data to map a complex organizational culture, I am not mapping human emotions. I am mapping shared values that have systematic and complex relationships as part of a whole.


Mhm. Of course. As I said, if I value logic over emotion. Yet I wasn't speaking of values in terms of what people think important. I was speaking of values in terms of ethical ideals that are largely nonrational. To me, these are largely emotional, and so I'd rather just use emotion and value interchangeably when speaking of feelers. 



> It may be that human value systems can _appeal_ to human emotion. It seems to me that human value systems are often transmitted via emotion or something like that, and this may be the source of your confusion re: the difference between the two (I would need to think about that relationship). But the value systems themselves aren't emotion.


I think values (as ethical ideals) are emotional at root. 



> So from my vantage point, the Vulcan valuation of logic is such a value system as well. If I may geek all the way out here (oh, why not), I read some novels putting forward a back story to the Vulcan-Romulan split and to my eyes as someone who looks at collective value systems, the split was based on two different sentient-being ("human") value systems.


No. Vulcan valuation of logic is simply a value in the sense of what some people find important. It is not a value in the sense of an ethical ideal (which is the sense of 'value' which applies to feeler types). Think about it. Analytically speaking, it makes no sense to speak of thinkers and feelers if all people are essentially prone to certain values. They say feelers are largely concerned with values while thinkers are concerned with logical reasoning. If logic itself is a type of value, then what's the difference between thinkers and feelers? Feelers are concerned with values, but thinkers also have values? No. Feelers are concerned with values (as ethical ideals) while thinkers simply value logic. Again, this is to use the word 'value' in two distinct senses. It's an equivocation of some sort. 

Considering the rest is based on this conceptual error, I will leave my response at this. 



LadyD said:


> I'm curious as to the reasoning behind conflating emotions with values. It doesn't make sense to me to equate the two, so I'm curious about your thinking here.


Yeah, what you explained is obvious. Emotions aren't literally the same as values (and I'm glad you understood what is meant by 'values'). You did a great job explaining what values are. However, I do not think it is correct to say that science as an enterprise of investigation can be considered a "value system." The simple reason is that science doesn't develop any 'prescriptive' ideals (i.e. ones by which we can live our lives). Science doesn't come with any rules or regulations concerning behavior and decision-making. In essence, science isn't a system of ethics. It's outside the scope of ethics. It's simply a system of investigation and exploration. Of learning and knowledge-seeking. 

Values as ethical ideals (and rules for decision-making) tend largely to stem from what people happen to simply feel to be the right or wrong thing to do. Certainly, however, there are ethical rules that are largely logical (e.g. Kant's categorical imperative, utilitarianism, and social contractarianism). These are ethical systems that are largely based on reason. But we aren't talking about rational ethical systems; we are talking about general values. And general values (as they descriptively occur in societies) tend to base on nonrational impulses people have about what is okay or not okay in life.

For example, my older sister told me about a wife and husband. The husband cheated on his second wife (and his first wife was a famous musician who died years ago). The husband had private letters from the first wife that he held dearly. The second wife out of frustration stole the letters and refused to admit that she took them (and did not want to give them back) sort of as a punishment to the husband for his cheating. 

To my sister and her husband (both feelers), it was absolutely abominable that the second wife did this. To them, "sentimental belongings are not replaceable; they're so sacred and cherished that no amount of wrongdoing could ever justify their destruction of theft." To me, this type of conclusion is the result of values. These two people simply feel that what the second wife did was wrong. Yet they could offer no strong reasons as to why anyone should think this. They simply felt it. To me, the husband's cheating somewhat justifies (or at least makes more understandable) the fact that the second wife took his sentimental belongings, because the second wife's personal integrity and sense of self-respect was probably violated by the husband's betrayal. To me, this type of retribution can be justified if the wrongdoer's actions are so heinous. Thus, I did not rule out the possibility that the second wife's actions may very well have been justified. She got the only justice she could get from a very wealthy and well-connected husband who took everything from her during the divorce. 

To me, this is a great example of the difference between logical reasoning (in particular, my penchant for philosophical reasoning) and simple human values. So yeah, I'm of the mindset that values are largely emotional in nature. In all my experience with feelers and their values, I've yet to come across one whose values actually stood the test of reason. Usually, they make no sense and the person is often immune to reason. No amount of logic or scrutiny is enough to get them to realize the error of holding to certain values. Yet they are too stubborn to resist and do so anyway. 

So agree to disagree. But either way, I am not saying that emotions = values. I was simply saying that values are largely emotional in nature, so much so that I'd rather simply talk about emotions when talking about the difference between feelers and thinkers. When it comes to feelers, surely there's values, but there's mostly emotions. Hopefully that clears things up.


----------



## Aquarian

Wow. I think this is the first time I have seen a thinker show so clearly what I would name as a sort of religious faith in logic/reasoning. It's interesting how your view of "feelers" and "emotions" gives you fuel for your doctrine and the unexamined assumptions about reality. 

Again: Wow. This is a new experience for me. Very interesting, so see this play out like this. Thank you for the reply.



Chaos_Wizard said:


> Well, perhaps we are not looking at this in the same way. I think of 'values' as 'ideals.' I do not mean to speak of values in terms of 'whatever someone happens to place importance on.' For instance, as a matter of fact, I do value logic (and so do the Vulcans, apparently). I also value ethical fabric, historical artifacts, and rare artistic masterpieces like the Mona Lisa. Yet to say that I value these things is not necessarily to speak of the 'values' that often concern 'feeling' types. For feeling types, values are instead often nonrational ideals - almost like intuitive notions of what is acceptable and what is not. Thus, values for feeling types often boil down to ethical standards of some form. Moreover, it does appear that these specific 'values' (as ethical ideals) do tend to be largely associated with emotion (as opposed to values in the more objective sense of 'whatever someone considers important'). For instance, if I value logic, that hardly has anything to do with emotion, clearly. Yet if I maintain a value that considers it wrong to kill unborn fetuses, one might say that this is largely tied to some type of emotional instinct of some form, such that it is not a rational, logical attitude or viewpoint.
> 
> And so, if someone who held to this value were to be bombarded with logic (as is often the case), the natural reaction is not to argue that the interlocutor's logic is invalid, but instead to attempt to justify the value to a logical person in a way that downplays the importance of logic. (And oddly enough, this movie did a great job of contrasting "gut feelings" and "intuitive hunches" with brute logic, though gut feelings and hunches have more to do with intuition and less to do with values.) Hence, I really don't think it's a big deal to draw a subtle distinction between 'values' and 'emotions.' More often than not, the two are largely interwoven together. So I consider them synonymous in a way (at least when speaking about what people think is the 'right thing' much of the time). Perhaps we can just say that values essentially boil down to some emotional basis, and so I can just skip to the chase (and not beat around the bush) and just speak of what's really going on. It's not really values; it's emotion. And hence, values (as emotions) are nonrational and don't favor well when logically scrutinized. I've come across tons of feeler types who maintain odd emotional value standards in arguments and conflicts (who stand fairly stubbornly to their own viewpoints and opinions) who yet cannot come up with any great logical reasons to explain why they feel so strongly about this or that stance they have taken on any given issue.
> 
> And thus, as I've already said, Spock is not a character with these emotional values. He's a bit cold, he's a bit naive with respect to that aspect of humanity. (In much the same way, he's very much like Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory. Sheldon is clueless when it comes to many social cues. He doesn't know when to hug someone, when to offer a compliment, or when to smile. He's just like a robot with incredibly intelligent mind who doesn't get basic interpersonal habits and gestures (and to be honest, neither do I most of the time). And guess what? Sheldon is almost universally regarded as an INTJ (a quintessential one, at that). So you see, he and Spock share many characteristics. Spock is so driven by logic and rational analysis throughout the movies that he cannot easily understand the gut instincts and values of others humans. Kirk has to constantly try to drill some of this into his head. It's like trying to get an android to understand why killing humans is wrong (and if you want to know what that's like, watch the attached clip). To put things bluntly, I don't think Spock would understand why abortion is wrong. The character - based on the way he come across in the movie - would likely want to know 'why?'. And I highly doubt such a rational individual would be satisfied by the real impulses that drive people to feel such things are wrong. It's just nonrational values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mhm. Of course. As I said, if I value logic over emotion. Yet I wasn't speaking of values in terms of what people think important. I was speaking of values in terms of ethical ideals that are largely nonrational. To me, these are largely emotional, and so I'd rather just use emotion and value interchangeably when speaking of feelers.
> 
> 
> 
> I think values (as ethical ideals) are emotional at root.
> 
> 
> 
> No. Vulcan valuation of logic is simply a value in the sense of what some people find important. It is not a value in the sense of an ethical ideal (which is the sense of 'value' which applies to feeler types). Think about it. Analytically speaking, it makes no sense to speak of thinkers and feelers if all people are essentially prone to certain values. They say feelers are largely concerned with values while thinkers are concerned with logical reasoning. If logic itself is a type of value, then what's the difference between thinkers and feelers? Feelers are concerned with values, but thinkers also have values? No. Feelers are concerned with values (as ethical ideals) while thinkers simply value logic. Again, this is to use the word 'value' in two distinct senses. It's an equivocation of some sort.
> 
> Considering the rest is based on this conceptual error, I will leave my response at this.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what you explained is obvious. Emotions aren't literally the same as values (and I'm glad you understood what is meant by 'values'). You did a great job explaining what values are. However, I do not think it is correct to say that science as an enterprise of investigation can be considered a "value system." The simple reason is that science doesn't develop any 'prescriptive' ideals (i.e. ones by which we can live our lives). Science doesn't come with any rules or regulations concerning behavior and decision-making. In essence, science isn't a system of ethics. It's outside the scope of ethics. It's simply a system of investigation and exploration. Of learning and knowledge-seeking.
> 
> Values as ethical ideals (and rules for decision-making) tend largely to stem from what people happen to simply feel to be the right or wrong thing to do. Certainly, however, there are ethical rules that are largely logical (e.g. Kant's categorical imperative, utilitarianism, and social contractarianism). These are ethical systems that are largely based on reason. But we aren't talking about rational ethical systems; we are talking about general values. And general values (as they descriptively occur in societies) tend to base on nonrational impulses people have about what is okay or not okay in life.
> 
> For example, my older sister told me about a wife and husband. The husband cheated on his second wife (and his first wife was a famous musician who died years ago). The husband had private letters from the first wife that he held dearly. The second wife out of frustration stole the letters and refused to admit that she took them (and did not want to give them back) sort of as a punishment to the husband for his cheating.
> 
> To my sister and her husband (both feelers), it was absolutely abominable that the second wife did this. To them, "sentimental belongings are not replaceable; they're so sacred and cherished that no amount of wrongdoing could ever justify their destruction of theft." To me, this type of conclusion is the result of values. These two people simply feel that what the second wife did was wrong. Yet they could offer no strong reasons as to why anyone should think this. They simply felt it. To me, the husband's cheating somewhat justifies (or at least makes more understandable) the fact that the second wife took his sentimental belongings, because the second wife's personal integrity and sense of self-respect was probably violated by the husband's betrayal. To me, this type of retribution can be justified if the wrongdoer's actions are so heinous. Thus, I did not rule out the possibility that the second wife's actions may very well have been justified. She got the only justice she could get from a very wealthy and well-connected husband who took everything from her during the divorce.
> 
> To me, this is a great example of the difference between logical reasoning (in particular, my penchant for philosophical reasoning) and simple human values. So yeah, I'm of the mindset that values are largely emotional in nature. In all my experience with feelers and their values, I've yet to come across one whose values actually stood the test of reason. Usually, they make no sense and the person is often immune to reason. No amount of logic or scrutiny is enough to get them to realize the error of holding to certain values. Yet they are too stubborn to resist and do so anyway.
> 
> So agree to disagree. But either way, I am not saying that emotions = values. I was simply saying that values are largely emotional in nature, so much so that I'd rather simply talk about emotions when talking about the difference between feelers and thinkers. When it comes to feelers, surely there's values, but there's mostly emotions. Hopefully that clears things up.


----------



## The Raven

I see Spock as a bit of an ISTJ because of how rule-based and loyal he is.


----------



## Chaos_Wizard

The Raven said:


> I see Spock as a bit of an ISTJ because of how rule-based and loyal he is.


Yeah, either that or INTJ. He's very rule-based.


----------



## Happy about Nothing.

Sdsinger said:


> I just saw the movie again today (fourth time, & have loved it every time!), & was trying to decide what types the characters were. And I kept thinking Kirk was an ESFP! (Complete Se + Fi.) I'm glad I'm not the only one. (ESTPs are easier for me to spot than ESFP, & he's certainly an Se dom, but there's no way he's Ti/Fe. He's Fi, no question.)


I had the same thought! He seemed to embody the stereotypical leadership capacity and perhaps stereotypical.....playboy attitude..... of an ESTP, but I completely agree, he seemed Fi. I kept thinking ENFP at first, but then I felt like he seemed Se. So yeah, but it's a movie so he could be some weird hybrid being of Se, Fi, Ti or something. hah.


----------



## Happy about Nothing.

Sonne said:


> Uhura seems INFJ, although I wonder why her Ni didn't
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pick up on Spock's "feeling or caring" for the crew when he was willing to sacrifice his life in the vulcano.


Maybe, but she also seemed like she could have been an ISFJ as well. :]


----------



## Chaos_Wizard

Happy about Nothing. said:


> I had the same thought! He seemed to embody the stereotypical leadership capacity and perhaps stereotypical.....playboy attitude..... of an ESTP, but I completely agree, he seemed Fi. I kept thinking ENFP at first, but then I felt like he seemed Se. So yeah, but it's a movie so he could be some weird hybrid being of Se, Fi, Ti or something. hah.


Na. ESTP.


----------



## Happy about Nothing.

Chaos_Wizard said:


> Na. ESTP.


Okay. Remember.....


* *




At the beginning, where Kirk is told that he doesn't listen to anybody and does what he feels, despite the rules and consequences?


 

His actions and behavior seem to suggest ESTP, but his general cognitive state suggests Fi.


----------



## Chaos_Wizard

Happy about Nothing. said:


> Okay. Remember.....
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the beginning, where Kirk is told that he doesn't listen to anybody and does what he feels, despite the rules and consequences?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His actions and behavior seem to suggest ESTP, but his general cognitive state suggests Fi.


I'm not so sure that is because of his feelings, or because he's simply rule-avoidant in the first place. From what I saw, Kirk is mostly logical. Asking things like "Why would someone do X?" Moreover, the emotional side of Kirk could just be a tertiary Fe. ESTPs and ENTPs can be quite emotional when put in leadership positions. They come to feel responsible for and care for those under their command. Perhaps more spoilers might be helpful!


----------



## Happy about Nothing.

Chaos_Wizard said:


> I'm not so sure that is because of his feelings, or because he's simply rule-avoidant in the first place. From what I saw, Kirk is mostly logical. Asking things like "Why would someone do X?" Moreover, the emotional side of Kirk could just be a tertiary Fe. ESTPs and ENTPs can be quite emotional when put in leadership positions. They come to feel responsible for and care for those under their command. Perhaps more spoilers might be helpful!


Maybe, I'm still fairly certain that it's a MOVIE and therefore characters don't function in the way real people do. Captain Kirk is allowed to be a mixture of functions as he is not a real person. ;]

I'm fine with ESXP. I don't think he really seems like an ESFP actually, but he does seem to have Fi and Fe tendencies.


----------



## Aquarian

Happy about Nothing. said:


> Maybe,* I'm still fairly certain that it's a MOVIE and therefore characters don't function in the way real people do.* Captain Kirk is allowed to be a mixture of functions as he is not a real person. ;].


*grin* I freaking love that you're pointing this out. 

(wait. Star Trek isn't real????? -insert Galaxy Quest reference here-)


----------



## Happy about Nothing.

Aquarian said:


> (wait. Star Trek isn't real????? -insert Galaxy Quest reference here-)


Crap.. Er...gee...I guess I should have put that in spoiler tags as well.



Chaos_Wizard said:


> Perhaps more spoilers might be helpful!


GEEZ. I've only seen the movie TWICE people. I'll make sure to bring a pen and a pad of paper next time I go so I can make sure to catch all of those precious Fi moments as they come! :tongue:


----------



## Dr.Horrible

Aquarian said:


> *grin* I freaking love that you're pointing this out.
> 
> (wait. Star Trek isn't real????? -insert Galaxy Quest reference here-)


chocolate rain.


----------



## Aquarian

Dr.Horrible said:


> chocolate rain.


I don't remember that, and the google machine is failing me! tell me please?


----------



## Chaos_Wizard

Happy about Nothing. said:


> Maybe, I'm still fairly certain that it's a MOVIE and therefore characters don't function in the way real people do. Captain Kirk is allowed to be a mixture of functions as he is not a real person. ;]
> 
> I'm fine with ESXP. I don't think he really seems like an ESFP actually, but he does seem to have Fi and Fe tendencies.


Agreed. Fair enough for me. Definitely most likely an Se dominant.


----------



## rcellie

James Kirk - ENFP
When Kirk takes in information, he doesn't just take it as it is, but tries to see, if he can use it for new possibilities. He wants to go beyond the norm, instead of the traditional method. As for making decisions, he finalizes them through his feelings or "gut feeling." Also, his life is very spontaneous and doesn't feel the need to plan ahead, but improv as he goes along.

Spock - ISTJ
Spock wholeheartedly values traditions, but he doesn't explore the possibilities of subjective ideas. When making decisions, he analyzes the situation and uses logical sequences to reach a specific outcome. As a side note for the confusion of his thinking and feeling traits, ISTJs's tertiary function is Fi, which balances the feelings of others and their logical natures. Finally, he is very organized in his thoughts and sticks to his plan without hesitation. 

Khan - INXJ 
At first, I viewed him as an INTJ, but the more I observed him, I began to obtain mix views toward him. His character is such an interesting study that I feel I need to watch the movie again to receive a more accurate analysis.


----------



## nonnaci

Just saw the movie yesterday 

Kirk: ESxP as he leads with Se, in the moment, experiential/gut thinking. He prefers taking action to contemplation as seen in the dialogue when he placed spock in charge of the helm. I put him closer to the Ti-Fe axis as he's able to infer Khan's motives and play his game as by using him to get to Marcus, broadcasting the exchange with Marcus to the whole crew, and his general criticism of Spock for having "thrown him under the bus" after saving him.

Spock: IxTJ: Te is clear as he pontificates federation regulations. I put him closer to the Ni-Se axis as there's a sort of repressed Se aggression that is only seen when he fights Khan rather than a flightly catastrophizing Ne.

Khan: ENTJ: The repressed Fi anger is his driving force that volcanoes throughout the film. Ni-Se gives him uncanny predictive power in both scheming and acting in the moment (fight against Klingons amongst others). Te seems sacrificed to inferior Fi. In a way, his functions are inverted due to a pull from the inferior.


----------



## Christie42476

(Based on recent movies, not TOS)

Kirk: ESTP
Spock: INTJ
Khan: ENTJ
Scotty: ENTP
McCoy: ESFJ
Uhura: ENFJ
Pike: ISTJ
Sulu: ESTJ (maybe)
Chekov: INTP (maybe)


----------



## Books and Hot Chocolate

Any ideas on Carol Marcus? I know she's not in it a lot but I'm curious about her type.


----------



## Christie42476

Books and Hot Chocolate said:


> Any ideas on Carol Marcus? I know she's not in it a lot but I'm curious about her type.


She struck me as INFJ almost immediately, but, like you said, she's not in it a lot. My impression might change in subsequent films, if she gets more screen time (as it seems likely she will, given the role she played in Kirk's life in the other timeline).


----------



## Pastry Provider

Kirk is so ESTP it hurts. I feel that Spock should be INFJ just so hes opposite from Kirk but hes probably INTJ.


----------



## rosered89

Chaos_Wizard said:


> Yeah, either that or INTJ. He's very rule-based.


It could be reasoned that he is ISTJ in that respect. Ni-Te does not strike me as adherent to bureaucratic procedures for their own sake, in fact, many INTJs i have been in close contact with resent authority, it is my belief they perceive it as an assault on their capacity to arrive to the correct decisions based on personal experimentation and empirical data. Introverted sensing interferes with the innovative nature of introverted intuition sometimes, at least in my personal experience.


----------



## cognitiveestrangement

I'd say Khan was portrayed as an INFJ gone dark. I've never thought about it like that before you mentioned it-- my first impression was, INTJ, but I'd have to agree. Khan is a very, very intelligent INFJ that has gone all out on vengeance. This is interesting, especially since Benedict Cumberbatch has been typed as an INFJ.


----------



## BAMlikeaSlam

I'm pretty sure Kirk is ENTJ. Here's why: he leads with forceful Te, and couldn't care less about social conformity, whether or not his status gives him authority or rules; even when he's not supposed to be on the ship, he has the nerve to rush right up to the captain and wastes no time with niceties. He's also extremely impatient, which is a common trait of ENTJ, and Te doms in general. When he needs to draw emotion out of Spock, he doesn't hesitate for a second to hurt him to get to his goal either (low Fi). He's logical, efficient and able to see and make haphazard plans and adapt on the fly in an almost rapid fire manner, which are all traits of ENTJ- it's said that the function stack placing Se in the third slot makes them more adaptive and in the physical elements than other NT types. He marshals resources in human potential, and takes information from pretty much everyone to serve his visions, another stereotypical trait of the ENTJ. At the beginning, when he's hitting on Uhura, he's charismatic but in an arrogant way, showing off what he knows, not taking no for an answer and not even hesitating to start a fight with half the bar. Think about it, for much of the movie, he's bent on rescuing captain Pike. He plots, plans, maneuvers and strategizes to do just that (high Ni). His character development shows what a decent and more well balanced ENTJ can be like, rather than the standard villain or evil boss persona. He can be empathic, and shows the utmost care for his crew- this is something ENTJs are capable of if they work on themselves.


----------

