# Russell Brand



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

For shits and giggles, how would you type Russell Brand, if you're familiar with him? Watch a Brand X episode if you want, he's pretty enjoyable to watch. 

Pretty obvious emphasis on Fe and Si, but the descriptions and other information that is independent of those two elements that also tack onto ESE, don't really fit him.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

I used to think SEE, but now I'm not so sure. He's an Se-type, that's for sure. I'm pretty sure he's inferior Ni, too (which I think a lot of people mistake for Ne).


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

Well i'm pretty sure he's a superior No No. :tongue:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Ethical base type, he sure isn't good at dealing with impersonal logical systems and when pressured it seems to stress him out a lot. I actually think he's an EIE, because when he's talking about ethics like in this video:






he does so in such broad strokes. It's about the people, the lies, the deceit, the apathy etc and not so much in the sense of how he personally relates to these concepts but how it's affecting people as a whole. Also, he's quite revolutionary (and no, I don't mean just literally but yes, that too) which seems to fit beta NF logic. In addition to that, he seems quite antagonistic against the Te perspective that is being presented to counter his arguments and why people should listen to him (he doesn't know how to respond so he just kind of ignores it). Last but not least, he's doing what I have come to see as typical EIE ethical speech rambles about grand values where he kind of somehow manages to inflate himself and his own ego importance despite not mentioning himself once (beta drama). I think Hamlet makes a lot of sense. Negativist also, like when asked about what kind of revolution he is seeking, and he responds with what he is not desiring to achieve rather than what he is trying to achieve. 

The interviewer seems to be an ILI also? I can see how their dynamic could fit supervision. It definitely seems asymmetrical but not asymmetrical enough where they can't communicate at all.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

i'd type him as ENTp


----------



## Indiana Dan (Jun 11, 2013)

I don't know, but he's annoying as shit whatever he is


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> Ethical base type, he sure isn't good at dealing with impersonal logical systems and when pressured it seems to stress him out a lot. I actually think he's an EIE, because when he's talking about ethics like in this video:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can see why you think this, but I'm not so sure. The views Brand expresses in that (fairly recent) video is completely different to what he stood for when he was younger, you only need to look at his earlier TV/stand-up work to see this. He lived a completely chaotic and hedonistic lifestyle. It was all about instant gratification. Sex, drugs, money and fame.

His recent interest in spirituality and his "revolutionary" ideas almost seem like an awkward eruption of inferior Ni, to me. There are many examples of interviews like the one you posted where he basically just keeps on saying the same things, again....and again...and again. There isn't much to it. It just comes across as somewhat lacking in depth and clumsy, IMO.

Lastly, I have actually seen Brand live during one of his stand-up gigs. In person he has incredible charisma and stage presence, he owns that space in a way that I associate with strong Se. He's got fucking tons of sex appeal, he will take and get what he wants, and he knows it. He's pretty abrasive and many people find him offensive and unsavoury (particularly the British middle classes). He got the BBC into huge trouble for causing outrage by taking part in some prank phone call on TV. It's fucking ridiculous how much drama it caused (for reference: The Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls row - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

Also, I don't think Paxman (the interviewer) is an ILI. He's SLI, or even LSE - for sure. I've also seen him talk in public and even had a conversation with him about British political history that almost put me to sleep because his views were so outdated and old-school. He's so Si, it hurts.

Still, I have had this feeling that Brand might be Beta for a while. Who knows.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kintsugi said:


> I can see why you think this, but I'm not so sure. The views Brand expresses in that (fairly recent) video is completely different to what he stood for when he was younger, you only need to look at his earlier TV/stand-up work to see this. He lived a completely chaotic and hedonistic lifestyle. It was all about instant gratification. Sex, drugs, money and fame.
> 
> His recent interest in spirituality and his "revolutionary" ideas almost seem like an awkward eruption of inferior Ni, to me. There are many examples of interviews like the one you posted where he basically just keeps on saying the same things, again....and again...and again. There isn't much to it. It just comes across as somewhat lacking in depth and clumsy, IMO.
> 
> ...


Well, only other option I am leaning towards is SLE pretty much, assuming he is not an EIE, though EIEs can be incredibly charismatic too. I tend to think of SLEs as a bit more abrasive in this regard. They lack that little nuance in their Fe to make that big impact required. He reminds me of Tom Cruise though I'm inclined to type Cruise as EIE too over the more common ESTP/SLE. Beta is very obvious to me either way. His ethics is not introverted, that's for sure. He's looking to have an emotional impact on a grander scale, not just you and I and our relationship, but he wants to make a change in the world, affect nations and groups of people. Fi doesn't quite work like that. And SLI for Paxman is possible. I just went on what I saw in the interview here which was obvious xLI type at least in this interview. LSE could be possible perhaps, but he seems more introverted than Brand. Also, Se HA can be quite impactful too in how it motivates the xIE. Regardless of what type Brand is, SeFe in some order is definitely his cognitive preference whether that is SLE-Se or EIE-Fe.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> Well, only other option I am leaning towards is SLE pretty much, assuming he is not an EIE, though EIEs can be incredibly charismatic too. I tend to think of SLEs as a bit more abrasive in this regard. They lack that little nuance in their Fe to make that big impact required. He reminds me of Tom Cruise though I'm inclined to type Cruise as EIE too over the more common ESTP/SLE. Beta is very obvious to me either way. His ethics is not introverted, that's for sure. He's looking to have an emotional impact on a grander scale, not just you and I and our relationship, but he wants to make a change in the world, affect nations and groups of people. Fi doesn't quite work like that. And SLI for Paxman is possible. I just went on what I saw in the interview here which was obvious xLI type at least in this interview. LSE could be possible perhaps, but he seems more introverted than Brand. Also, Se HA can be quite impactful too in how it motivates the xIE. Regardless of what type Brand is, SeFe in some order is definitely his cognitive preference whether that is SLE-Se or EIE-Fe.


I used to think he was SEE, mainly because I relate to Brand a lot, actually. I think one thing you have to separate is the public persona from the actual person, which is hard when you don't know them on a personal level. I started relating to him when I watched a documentary he had made about drug addiction and the push for drug legalization and reforms in the justice system regarding how addictions are treated. Idk, I guess there was another side of Brand revealed in that, that didn't seem so Fe, and perhaps more Fi. Realistically, it was probably just projection on my half.

I also think he's Beta, and what has reinforced this even more for me is his current work with the David Lynch Foundation and that cult-like creepy Transcendental meditation group. I saw a few talks he had done for them that made me skin crawl. It definitely felt like someone was trying to brainwash me.

It's between EIE and SLE for me.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kintsugi said:


> I used to think he was SEE, mainly because I relate to Brand a lot, actually. I think one thing you have to separate is the public persona from the actual person, which is hard when you don't know them on a personal level. I started relating to him when I watched a documentary he had made about drug addiction and the push for drug legalization and reforms in the justice system regarding how addictions are treated. Idk, I guess there was another side of Brand revealed in that, that didn't seem so Fe, and perhaps more Fi. Realistically, it was probably just projection on my half.
> 
> I also think he's Beta, and what has reinforced this even more for me is his current work with the David Lynch Foundation and that cult-like creepy Transcendental meditation group. I saw a few talks he had done for them that made me skin crawl. It definitely felt like someone was trying to brainwash me.
> 
> It's between EIE and SLE for me.


You are right that public persona can be different from how people appear in private and this may make it more difficult to type people because you aren't entirely sure on what you are typing. I think as you say, based on Brand's interests though, that he seems like a beta over a gamma either way. Alpha is possible too, but he just seems a bit too... focused, for an alpha. More goal-oriented and direct in his approach. I think an alpha would be a bit more uh... out there? Coming up with grander ideas but none would be truly applicable in the end. It would be less about application and more about what's theoretically possible and expanding theoretical horizons and I don't see that in Brand. 

Which is to say that I think a gamma can be involved in cults and stuff too, but again, like how he appeared in the video I watched, he seems more drawn towards some sense of collectivism which just doesn't seem very inherent in gamma. 

As for addiction, I think any type can be addicted obviously, so it could just be that you related to the experience? That's just universally human to a degree and not necessarily type related.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Se dom - regardless of this sudden (and I think inferior) surge of Ni. I chose SEE because of how antagonistic and impetuous he is, but good points toward Fe make me second guess. 

Unless Socionics EIE is far far afield of how I view it, I am highly resistant to this. I think that this all smacks very much of an inferior manifestation. It's about 30 that all my SP friends are suddenly becoming super political and ideological. An ESI (trying to get used to Socionics letters) girl - that fit just about every bad stereotype of ESI, just got elected to some position in city government, I don't remember what but it was one in which she'd have a voice in laws, at least a rhetorical one. She is like an introverted Russell Brand, at least in terms of the Ni aspect. It kinda came out of nowhere, surprises people about them, but is really tightly held... pretty abstract views that feel paranoid and ... like... a reductionist, and archetypal (detached from any data, like a subjective and negative 'vision' or imagination), view of these forces in the world. It very much feels inferior. In fact, I first saw these videos from Brand when she posted them on facebook, expressing her amazement and how impressed she was with it and all that. It was pretty much a reflection of her... though obviously a great deal more extraverted. 

This girl I am talking about, her brother is an EIE. He has been doing what she is now doing, maturely, since junior high. He had daliances with Se, but it was clearly the suppressed and peripheral thing. He shakes his head at her, and Russell Brand. It is adolescent to someone whose conscious mind is oriented to this since always. His approach and views are much much much more developed and mature... and thus more moderate in presentation. 

This is Rachel Maddow vs Russell Brand dichotomy on the subject of Ni Fe positioning in extraverted 'Beta's. Russell is showing up for the game a day late and a dollar short, as the saying goes.

Also, one the subject of Se activism and Russell Brand specifically... forgive me, but I cannot resist. This is done with love:


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> As for addiction, I think any type can be addcited obviously, so it could just be that you related to the experience? That's just universally human to a degree and not necessarily type related.


True, any type can be an addict. As I said, I think a lot of it was due to projection.

Idk why, but when he talks of addiction it kinda reminds me of Se. Again, this might just be projection on my part. It's the impulsive hunger that can only be satisfied through instant gratification that he talks about that I relate to. And the filling of an empty, bottomless void. I happened to interpret that "void" as a lack of Ni. Sometimes when I listen to Brand, it's almost like he's trying to say the same thing. Which is maybe why I relate.

But, ultimately, as you say, it's a human thing. 

I just read that back and totally LOL'd. I think you'll get what I mean though.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kintsugi said:


> True, any type can be an addict. As I said, I think a lot of it was due to projection.
> 
> Idk why, but when he talks of addiction it kinda reminds me of Se. Again, this might just be projection on my part. It's the impulsive hunger that can only be satisfied through instant gratification that he talks about that I relate to. And the filling of an empty, bottomless void. I happened to interpret that "void" as a lack of Ni. Sometimes when I listen to Brand, it's almost like he's trying to say the same thing. Which is maybe why I relate.
> 
> ...


I do, though I can see how that can be explained numerous ways unrelated to cognition, obviously. I can understand too though I haven't abused any substances per se, but I have abused other things in the past yes.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> I do, though I can see how that can be explained numerous ways unrelated to cognition, obviously. I can understand too though I haven't abused any substances per se, but I have abused other things in the past yes.


I think drugs were my faux-Ni, for many, many years. Like I said, when Brand talks about his "spiritual" realizations in terms of finally figuring out that you don't need any fucking chemicals to reach certain levels, I relate.

But that's probably got more to do with the affects of drugs than cognition.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kintsugi said:


> I think drugs were my faux-Ni, for many, many years. Like I said, when Brand talks about his "spiritual" realizations in terms of finally figuring out that you don't need any fucking chemicals to reach certain levels, I relate.
> 
> But that's probably got more to do with the affects of drugs than cognition.


Likely. Well, when people are at a low point in life which they likely are if they take drugs or just abuse in general, it's because they are seeking clarity but are avoiding to walk the path required in order to find it because it's too painful. So it's kind of like being a little stuck in limbo where it's neither truly hell nor heaven, because hell would be where you would be without the abuse, but heaven is where you really want to be. 

So it's a little like that constant searching for something that you crave inside because you likely already know of the solution but you must take steps in order to achieve it and that's the difficult part.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

arkigos said:


> Se dom - regardless of this sudden (and I think inferior) surge of Ni. I chose SEE because of how antagonistic and impetuous he is, but good points toward Fe make me second guess.
> 
> Unless Socionics EIE is far far afield of how I view it, I am highly resistant to this. I think that this all smacks very much of an inferior manifestation. It's about 30 that all my SP friends are suddenly becoming super political and ideological. An ESI (trying to get used to Socionics letters) girl - that fit just about every bad stereotype of ESI, just got elected to some position in city government, I don't remember what but it was one in which she'd have a voice in laws, at least a rhetorical one. She is like an introverted Russell Brand, at least in terms of the Ni aspect. It kinda came out of nowhere, surprises people about them, but is really tightly held... pretty abstract views that feel paranoid and ... like... a reductionist, and archetypal (detached from any data, like a subjective and negative 'vision' or imagination), view of these forces in the world. It very much feels inferior. In fact, I first saw these videos from Brand when she posted them on facebook, expressing her amazement and how impressed she was with it and all that. It was pretty much a reflection of her... though obviously a great deal more extraverted.
> 
> ...


Good point. Might be important to add at this point that I am nearing the 30s myself (about to hit 29). I highly doubt I would have related to Brand in the same way I do now, 5-10 years ago. I also agree it smells of something inferior - most likely Ni.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

I always found it interesting... though I can't speak absolutely for the significance of it... a little interesting experiment in drugs I have had. I knew a little gaggle of Se types (a few LSIs and an SLE) that smoked pot. I made friends with them and got opened up to quite the little drug (mostly just pot and mushrooms, and alcohol) community. I asked a bunch of people about it, and came to the very well-supported conclusion that drug abuse is specifically tied to emotional issues... I would say mental illness, and that is true, but not just that... it isn't really revolutionary to say it is medication for physical or, more likely, psychological pain... or psychological stress. I don't just mean stress, but psychological stress..... er, like, one of the worst abusers was having a gender identity crisis which is made all the worse for the highly conservative/religious culture in my area. Basically, it was a required reprieve and escape from what I would classify as a 'loop' but others might simply classify as being stuck between two sources of pain. For others, it was more ambiguous but still it was an escape, or the filling of a void. 

If not for that, there seemed to be no problem... I am sure that the situation changes with things like heroin, but the point stands. 

But! That isn't the interesting part. The thing that always bugged me with 'Beta' people smoking pot, was how they went on so stereotypically about how it expanded their minds. I was so ruffled by that. "No," I thought and even sometimes said, "it specifically doesn't." But, that is always what they focused on... other than the obvious modifications to well-being.

So, ever dedicated to the cause of science... I decided to get high, basically, to more effectively and robustly judge them. Haha! As expected: Nothing. I vaguely remember some guy yapping about the government while I watched a river flow across the ceiling in tinkling blue and white lights and vividly rustling leaves of upside down trees. 

They all thought that was pretty crazy, but stuff like that is nothing new to me... but the VIVIDNESS of it was certainly new. On another occasion I took off my shirt and went outside to feel the intricate licks of wind on my skin... and put all different types of fruit in my mouth... it was incredibly vivid. It was, actually, JUST like this:






...and I can't help but marvel that anyone would talk or think about the stupid government when that shit is going on. It made me wonder if this emphasis amounted to a cognitive down-shift... that we were experiencing our lower functions... or perhaps just that both things are affected and it was novel because we are usually so detached from that... or held back from it? I don't know. 

Or, maybe the LSI types in my story think like that all the time and the drugs just got them talking?


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

lol, this conversation officially got too abstract for me. I need a nights sleep before I even attempt to try and understand and tackle what was written above. XD


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@arkigos I have always had an interest in mind-altering drugs in particular, not necessarily because I expect mind expansion but I expect to experience my mind crystallize more, I suppose? Unfortunately getting your hands on those here is more difficult unless you associate yourself with those circles and being the introvert I am, I don't even know what to look for even if I tried lol.

With that said, I don't need to take drugs in order to experience hallucinatory effects on my own. I can do it just by letting my mind drift and be more openly receptive to my environment. I can for example look at my plate and see a tree growing from it, or see swirls coming out of my flower that's standing on the windowpane. Essentially stuff like this:






People think you need to be on drugs in order to come up with this stuff. No, you don't. I am not sure if this is something commonly shared among all Ni types (I assume it would be the most pronounced in dom/bases if so which would explain my condition or something? idk, cyriak's Ni dom anyway based on his art alone), but I can do it and I _know_ this at a deeper fundamental level because that's part how my brain is wired, as weird as it may seem to an outsider. Another similar film that comes to mind is Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. It resonated in a similar way like cyriak's videos do. 

With that said, I think I already suffer from mild auditory hallucinations sometimes, as I can hear sounds I later realize were not there. As an addendum thing, I wonder if that's why I'm also drawn to fiction in general that tends to play on this not so much in the sense of paranoia like say, The Machinist (it wasn't impressive anyway), but more in that hallucinations become _real_, like that mindfuck moment in Silent Hill 4 where you realize that reality has become this alternate dimension you used to traverse.

So essentially I suppose that if I would take drugs, I would experience something like that? lol. Difficult to say since I never tried. 

Also it's funny you would link a video of a character who is definitely an LSI in relation to what you wrote in the above in order affirm your relation to the sensory. Well, LSI and LII aren't that different in the end. Still Ti base or doms. Just different kinds of strokes of.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> @_arkigos_ I have always had an interest in mind-altering drugs in particular, not necessarily because I expect mind expansion but I expect to experience my mind crystallize more, I suppose? Unfortunately getting your hands on those here is more difficult unless you associate yourself with those circles and being the introvert I am, I don't even know what to look for even if I tried lol.
> 
> With that said, I don't need to take drugs in order to experience hallucinatory effects on my own. I can do it just by letting my mind drift and be more openly receptive to my environment. I can for example look at my plate and see a tree growing from it, or see swirls coming out of my flower that's standing on the windowpane. Essentially stuff like this:
> 
> ...


Yeah, the thing was... the river on the ceiling and upside down trees didn't interest me at all. It was absolutely other-worldly... but, like I said, that is old news. I imagine crazy stuff like that all the time. I don't know about that goat example, but, as an example... I'll be walking through a house and suddenly just duck down and back up. An observer might think that was a bit odd, but I was just getting low as a blue silk ribbon sliced through the house, rending everything above chest level off in a clean cut, which was violently ripped into a maelstrom above. I am nonplussed, and despite the wind, walk calmly to the basement door, down to relative safety, only to find it packed with hundreds of terrified people and the windows blown out. I get the roll of paper towels I was down there to get, and walk calmly back up. 

Trees on ceilings is pretty mild stuff compared to what my mind produces on an errand into my basement. 

On the other hand, holding a strawberry and comprehending and sensing it in an almost existential hyper-reality is incredibly novel to me. I sat there agitating the skin of a freaking strawberry for 10 minutes. Watching it bulge, feeling the skin break... plunging my finger into it... crushing it, feeling the rivulet of juice flow down my arm so presently... then eating it like a savage. It was very unusual for me. 

It further bolstered my understanding that what I was experiencing was specifically NOT Se.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

arkigos said:


> Yeah, the thing was... the river on the ceiling and upside down trees didn't interest me at all. It was absolutely other-worldly... but, like I said, that is old news. I imagine crazy stuff like that all the time. I don't know about that goat example, but, as an example... I'll be walking through a house and suddenly just duck down and back up. An observer might think that was a bit odd, but I was just getting low as a blue silk ribbon sliced through the house, rending everything above chest level off in a clean cut, which was violently ripped into a maelstrom above. I am nonplussed, and despite the wind, walk calmly to the basement door, down to relative safety, only to find it packed with hundreds of terrified people and the windows blown out. I get the roll of paper towels I was down there to get, and walk calmly back up.
> 
> Trees on ceilings is pretty mild stuff compared to what my mind produces on an errand into my basement.
> 
> ...


I tend to experience hyper-reality when I am really stressed out (or too high on caffeine). But you mean what you experience normally is not Se?

I don't even know what I experience. I wouldn't say that these kinds of things happen to be often or even naturally as I need to tune myself into it somewhat, but hyper-reality is definitely not it anyway, since that's what happens when I get stressed out. I remember that I probably stood like 10 minutes trying to get rid of a stain on my cousin's stove after we had made dinner together and she being an SLE told me to stop lol. The stain wasn't just going to go away, but in my stupid mind it just had to go away or the stove wouldn't be pristine clean as I desired it to. Either I don't care at all or I just care too much.

Like today for example. The janitor finally came to fix the leak in my bathroom sink that's been like that for several months though I only recently tried to actually get it fixed (yeah, I guess that says a lot on its own...), and seeing my now functional sink with replaced plumbing just spurred this need to clean the rest of my bathroom. I didn't have to. It just had to match that pristine cleanliness even though I have not given much of a fuck about its state for weeks and only cleaned it rather halfheartedly in the past because I kind of have to at some point. 

When did this thread turn into a rant about how stupid inferior sensation is? Which reminds me that I should also go sleep in relation to that.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

Part of me wants to take you both to a little abandoned hut in the middle of an isolated forest. :crazy:

I agree with above. I realized, I don't need drugs to hit the highs I seek. It does, in ways, make it much more fucking enjoyable though (for me, at least).


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Kintsugi said:


> I used to think SEE, but now I'm not so sure. He's an Se-type, that's for sure. I'm pretty sure he's inferior Ni, too (which I think a lot of people mistake for Ne).


Definitely not Se-ego. Watch his show Brand X, he always comments on the mood, how pleasant his surroundings are, and he once said (I paraphrase) "Everything would be fine really if everyone was kind to each other, we all had plenty of food, and we fucked once in a while." Linguistically, he uses adjectives like lovely a lot as well.



ephemereality said:


> Ethical base type, he sure isn't good at dealing with impersonal logical systems and when pressured it seems to stress him out a lot. I actually think he's an EIE, because when he's talking about ethics like in this video:


He really doesn't seem stressed at all in that video, but frustrated at the repetitiveness of the interviewer. Not arguing against his preference towards ethics, though.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Definitely not Se-ego. Watch his show Brand X, he always comments on the mood, how pleasant his surroundings are, and he once said (I paraphrase) "Everything would be fine really if everyone was kind to each other, we all had plenty of food, and we fucked once in a while." Linguistically, he uses adjectives like lovely a lot as well.


Like I said above, if you look at Brands career history you will notice a significant difference in the way he presents himself now in comparison to his younger self. Again, as I mentioned before, I have seen Brand perform live. His charisma and stage presence could, IMO, easily be attributed to Se-dominance. However, I think there is an argument that could be made for him possibly being EIE.

I don't see how his comment about people being "nice to each other" is necessarily type related. Actually, it strikes me as rather cliche and simplistic, really. Brand is first and foremost an entertainer and a stand-up comedian. Most of these traits could easily by the result of years of experience learning how to feel/read the vibe of his audience (which is very important for live performance). All this recent spirituality and "revolutionary" talk seems more like a sudden display/eruption of the inferior function, IMO. Having said that, the guy has struggled with multiple addictions throughout his life; using meditation/yoga and turning to spirituality/religion happens to be his preferred method of managing/coping with this. It might not have anything to do with "type" at all.

I still think: SLE, SEE or EIE (in no particular order)


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Kintsugi said:


> I don't see how his comment about people being "nice to each other" is necessarily type related.


You purposefully misquoted that and it's out of context. It was one of those allegorical things he puts in comedy. His charisma and stage-presence could also be attributed to Fe. However, it shouldn't be attributed to his experience in comedy. For one, you must look at why someone got into comedy in the first place and the person's particular style. For example, I don't think Conan's success in comedy can seriously be attributed to Fe or Se. 

At any rate, he's impulsive and dysfunctional, judging from his childhood and history of mental illness.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> You purposefully misquoted that and it's out of context. It was one of those allegorical things he puts in comedy. His charisma and stage-presence could also be attributed to Fe. However, it shouldn't be attributed to his experience in comedy. For one, you must look at why someone got into comedy in the first place and the person's particular style. For example, I don't think Conan's success in comedy can seriously be attributed to Fe or Se.
> 
> At any rate, he's impulsive and dysfunctional, judging from his childhood and history of mental illness.


I purposely misquoted nothing. I had just woken up when I wrote that and was half asleep. 

There are plenty of interviews where he explains how and why he got into comedy. This doesn't change how I feel about his type. I also haven't ruled out the possibility that he might be an Fe-type (most likely Beta, either EIE or SLE).

Anyway, other than nitpicking, you don't seem to have anything else to add that I haven't already considered.


----------



## KCfox (Mar 4, 2014)

Haven't seen him much but he definitely looks to me like an ENFp with serious value system issues. His performance gives off a wannabe ESTp effect almost.
He seems in constant roleplay to a Jack Sparrow esque vigilant character but he adds quite a energetic discordance when he communicates out loud. I think this is why he's often typed between the two said types as an ENTp/ESFp, but Russell Brand seems more of a feeler which is also no doubt why he takes not much rational criticism to his inner sense of logic too personally.

He doesn't seem a sensor to me at all as he's not seemingly in much connection to the world directly around him which is more of an intuitive thing.
He isn't in much tune with the audience's energy, either which is more of a subjective feeler temperament. He doesn't seem overly sentimental, either and he's very much seemingly rebellious.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

KCfox said:


> Haven't seen him much but he definitely looks to me like an ENFp with serious value system issues. His performance gives off a wannabe ESTp effect almost.
> He seems in constant roleplay to a Jack Sparrow esque vigilant character but he adds quite a energetic discordance when he communicates out loud. I think this is why he's often typed between the two said types as an ENTp/ESFp, but Russell Brand seems more of a feeler which is also no doubt why he takes not much rational criticism to his inner sense of logic too personally.
> 
> He doesn't seem a sensor to me at all as he's not seemingly in much connection to the world directly around him which is more of an intuitive thing.
> He isn't in much tune with the audience's energy, either which is more of a subjective feeler temperament. He doesn't seem overly sentimental, either and he's very much seemingly rebellious.


I agree on the points you made about Brand possibly being an Fi-type. 

LOL @ "Jack Sparrow". Brand is originally from Essex in the UK; he might come across as a stereotype because of his strong regional accent. I do think he adopts the stereotypical English "cheeky-chappy" persona though, particularly when he's on stage. However, if you watch more serious and personal interviews you'll notice that this is toned down considerably. I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean when you say he adds an energetic discordance when he talks? I think he often comes off as rather chaotic and uncontrolled in both thought and action, which is something I'd personally attribute to weak Ti, possibly Ti PoLR. 

I honestly can't see any Ne in Brand, which is why I don't think he is ENFp/IEE. I think Se is often mistaken for Ne on the surface, the two can look very similar, superficially. If you watch Brand closely you'll notice his eyes constantly jump from object to object, very rapidly. He's always looking for possibilities in the present to manipulate or take advantage of; especially when he's doing stand-up comedy. Also, he's extremely physical. He will often go up to someone in the audience and randomly sit on their lap, pretend to hump their leg, etc. He also _loves _using sexual innuendo. To me this indicates that he seems to be following visible ques and pushing physical boundaries. He just doesn't seem to be interested or focused on conceptual possibilities in the way that Ne works, or at least, how I perceive it to (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no Ne-type). 

I think what often looks like Ne in Brand is actually inferior Ni at play. In particular, most recently, when he has become more vocal about his views on spirituality and his disillusionment with mainstream politics. Brand is a talented performer, he has a skill for making it sound like he knows what he's talking about when he actually knows jack shit. What I have noticed though is that he is unable to bring much depth to his ideas when prompted in interviews. He just keeps repeating the same thing, again and again, which is why I think so many people become frustrated and call him a fraud. He seems to have a rather subjective and internal vision of how things are/should be, his own personal ideology (very Ni and possibly Fi too). He is not interested in talking about objective religious or political theory/ideologies; time and time again he says he is not interested in the current paradigms, he thinks we need to break the current system and create new ones (which does not strike me at all as Ne/Si - it's very revolutionary). 

Not sure if any of that made much sense. If I weren't so lazy I'd post links/videos to emphasize my points.


----------



## SweetPickles (Mar 19, 2012)

ESFP, totally


----------



## KCfox (Mar 4, 2014)

@Kintsugi:

He seems to adopt more so the shaggy image and the mannerisms of Jack Sparrow than accent from what I have seen. The discordance I am referring to is his energetic display of chaotic and carefree thought patterns verbally which appear to make him outspoken.
Extroverts in general tend to tone down when there is less people around due to the lack of social engagement. Strong Ne users, however, can certainly start to get increasingly bored when talking on a single thing more quickly than with other types, the switch to Fi causes more serious and mellow behaviour though the Ne tends to stay there like an itch needing to be scratched. I googled and it seems most people see him as either an ENTp or an ENFp.

Note that ENFp are seen as an advocate personality type and have internal ethics (Fi) that they strive to support when they get that chance (supposing they have ethics which are controversial, at least).
He's definitely an Ne user but his dominant function isn't very well developed.

Listening to his voice in more serious videos you can hear that his voice is melodic and emphasises on more abstract details, that is most common in NF types. His lower part of his voice trips over into a mumblish tone which shows he is also quite carefree about how he puts himself across, an S type is more likely to break things into concrete steps and articulate their voice better.

He likes to assert his point quite strongly and tends to have issues with his super ego Ti function a lot. He tries to get his point across and trips up on describing because his system on understanding what he is describing was initially subjective which is why when it comes to ethics he tends to repeat himself. His Fi and Ti stress he has somewhat of an inner battle. I can see he also does this considerably for an element of popularity, though I can see in the mind he is sincere to his inner ethics.

The creative function seems a clear Fi because when he's on stage he seems to want others to relate to him and he enjoys it when they do, though his patterns remain Ne from what I can see. Notice how when he wants to be he is very firm with others using Se, his super ego is very much in your face though overall he is in his own world, switching so much to his role function he increases in his energetic discordant display which can send him into states of ignorance to any sense of objective morality and the flattened Ne can provoke a pranky attitude within the ego. Internally his Se may trip up when he goes too far but in the moment he remains in his head and rather than harmonising with the more objective environment, he can still see himself as right for the strength of his fan base being much to his social comfort (seems fame is causing damage to his psych). His function usage here is clearly unhealthy which is likely to make some people feel very annoyed by his social aura and even rally against his ethical perspective. His poor use of Te shows he prefers an alternative, less notable / aligned doctrine which is caused by his Fi bias, effectively making him look like an idiot to those who favour the more popular schools of thought. I don't see much Ni usage, Ni prefers to see beyond the box at an entirely different reality and then tries to test logic to make this so and effectively is more decisive in the end; Ne prefers to see things from many different perspectives and thinks out of the box while effectively working with the box simultaneously, unlike Ne it crosses several ideas at once and becomes more flexible on the end. I note that Russell tries many different ways to get what he wants in terms of idealism, an Ni user is much more likely to stick at one thing, master it and use that to win over others as it is much more future oriented than Ne, Ne is more project oriented.

If I shared his world view I would do the same thing, trying to engage in the various windows to advocate and champion my idealism and ideas overall. ENFp are very much advocates and sociable loners in essence. He's way too heady for an S. I also feel like he is an enneagram 7 (enthusiast) with a suppressed 6 wing (trooper) which also correlates to the ENFp type.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

KCfox said:


> If I shared his world view I would do the same thing, trying to engage in the various windows to advocate and champion my idealism and ideas overall. ENFp are very much advocates and sociable loners in essence. He's way too heady for an S. I also feel like he is an enneagram 7 (enthusiast) with a suppressed 6 wing (trooper) which also correlates to the ENFp type.


He seems CP6 to me which could explain why he's so focused on society at large, cults, political movements with a need to have a social impact etc. Also strong social instinct. And sensors can be "heady" just like logical types can be "feely".


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> He seems CP6 to me which could explain why he's so focused on society at large, cults, political movements with a need to have a social impact etc. Also strong social instinct. And sensors can be "heady" just like logical types can be "feely".


Yeah, I agree. 

I'm more 'heady' than my SO who is an ILI 4w5 and he's more "feely" than me.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

arkigos said:


> I always found it interesting... though I can't speak absolutely for the significance of it... a little interesting experiment in drugs I have had. I knew a little gaggle of Se types (a few LSIs and an SLE) that smoked pot. I made friends with them and got opened up to quite the little drug (mostly just pot and mushrooms, and alcohol) community. I asked a bunch of people about it, and came to the very well-supported conclusion that drug abuse is specifically tied to emotional issues... I would say mental illness, and that is true, but not just that... it isn't really revolutionary to say it is medication for physical or, more likely, psychological pain... or psychological stress. I don't just mean stress, but psychological stress..... er, like, one of the worst abusers was having a gender identity crisis which is made all the worse for the highly conservative/religious culture in my area. Basically, it was a required reprieve and escape from what I would classify as a 'loop' but others might simply classify as being stuck between two sources of pain. For others, it was more ambiguous but still it was an escape, or the filling of a void.
> 
> If not for that, there seemed to be no problem... I am sure that the situation changes with things like heroin, but the point stands.
> 
> ...


Is it just me, or is that Dexter video incredibly Si? I'm pleasantly pacified by it.

I could see how people could see it as repulsive, in a way, but I don't... I kinda imagined that's what it'd be like on drugs.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

KCfox said:


> Extroverts in general tend to tone down when there is less people around due to the lack of social engagement. *Strong Ne users, however, can certainly start to get increasingly bored when talking on a single thing more quickly than with other types, the switch to Fi causes more serious and mellow behaviour* though the Ne tends to stay there like an itch needing to be scratched. I googled and it seems most people see him as either an ENTp or an ENFp.


What I've highlighted above is something I relate strongly to and therefore do think it is exclusively related to Ne/IEE.



> I googled and it seems most people see him as either an ENTp or an ENFp.


This literally means nothing to me. I would argue most people are too lazy to properly learn these theories to be able to type themselves, let alone anyone else properly. 



> Listening to his voice in more serious videos you can hear that his voice is melodic and emphasises on more abstract details, that is most common in NF types. His lower part of his voice trips over into a mumblish tone which shows he is also quite carefree about how he puts himself across, an S type is more likely to break things into concrete steps and articulate their voice better.


You lost me at this point, lol. This seems like a very Ne/Si interpretation?

Also, I actually think he is very clear and concrete. I follow his thought patterns very easily while I am finding it harder to, say, follow yours (no offence. :tongue



> He likes to assert his point quite strongly and tends to have issues with his super ego Ti function a lot. He tries to get his point across and trips up on describing because his system on understanding what he is describing was initially subjective which is why when it comes to ethics he tends to repeat himself. His Fi and Ti stress he has somewhat of an inner battle. I can see he also does this considerably for an element of popularity, though I can see in the mind he is sincere to his inner ethics.


Well, yeah. Ti -PoLR. That's a similar issue for both IEE/SEE.



> The creative function seems a clear Fi because when he's on stage he seems to want others to relate to him and he enjoys it when they do, though his patterns remain Ne from what I can see. Notice how when he wants to be he is very firm with others using Se, his super ego is very much in your face though overall he is in his own world, switching so much to his role function he increases in his energetic discordant display which can send him into states of ignorance to any sense of objective morality and the flattened Ne can provoke a pranky attitude within the ego. Internally his Se may trip up when he goes too far but in the moment he remains in his head and rather than harmonising with the more objective environment, he can still see himself as right for the strength of his fan base being much to his social comfort (seems fame is causing damage to his psych). His function usage here is clearly unhealthy which is likely to make some people feel very annoyed by his social aura and even rally against his ethical perspective. His poor use of Te shows he prefers an alternative, less notable / aligned doctrine which is caused by his Fi bias, effectively making him look like an idiot to those who favour the more popular schools of thought. I don't see much Ni usage, Ni prefers to see beyond the box at an entirely different reality and then tries to test logic to make this so and effectively is more decisive in the end; Ne prefers to see things from many different perspectives and thinks out of the box while effectively working with the box simultaneously, unlike Ne it crosses several ideas at once and becomes more flexible on the end. _*I note that Russell tries many different ways to get what he wants in terms of idealism, an Ni user is much more likely to stick at one thing, master it and use that to win over others as it is much more future oriented than Ne, Ne is more project oriented*_.


What patterns? Sorry, I don't see any patterns - can you give concrete examples?

The bold part I don't really understand. Brand just rehashes the same ideas, again and again and again. Seriously, once you've listened to a few of his rants you've heard them all. There really isn't that much depth to them. He comes across as quite obviously Ni-seeking, IMO. I think people overestimate him a lot (mainly because he's good at bullshitting and perhaps because he's a well known/liked public figure). Actually, during one interview he kept being asked to provide solutions/alternatives to the current systems/ideologies he claims need changing; to which he answered,_ "I'm not claiming to have the answers mate, I'm just a fucking stand up comedian" _(or something along those lines).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> Is it just me, or is that Dexter video incredibly Si? I'm pleasantly pacified by it.
> 
> I could see how people could see it as repulsive, in a way, but I don't... I kinda imagined that's what it'd be like on drugs.


Sensation in general, but I would say Se rather than Si because of the symbolic implications that are laden into it, alluding to the fact that Dexter is a serial killer (Dexter himself is an LSI). I am not sure Si can be as easily depicted in a concrete manifestation in the first place, but I think most agree on that impressionist art is Si-inspired for example. I can see a similar argument made for expressionism.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Sensation in general, but I would say Se rather than Si because of the symbolic implications that are laden into it, alluding to the fact that Dexter is a serial killer (Dexter himself is an LSI). I am not sure Si can be as easily depicted in a concrete manifestation in the first place, but I think most agree on that impressionist art is Si-inspired for example. I can see a similar argument made for expressionism.


I had thought _that _would be the obvious answer. But, I sometimes strive to look beyond the obvious answer. Se is what things are, concretely, and what they are doing, so it seemed that that Dexter clip should have been Se. But, for some reason, something about it... Ah, well, odd thought, perhaps.

I can see how impressionistic and expressionistic art might be interpreted as Si. Makes sense. Hehe. Sense.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> I had thought _that _would be the obvious answer. But, I sometimes strive to look beyond the obvious answer. Se is what things are, concretely, and what they are doing, so it seemed that that Dexter clip should have been Se. But, for some reason, something about it... Ah, well, odd thought, perhaps.


Well, it's hyper-realistic but hyper-realism is just that though. I see where you are coming from but given the implied symbolic meaning of the OP I fail to see Ne in it. It's not open-ended enough, like the scene where he's slicing the orange. You are supposed to think he is slicing someone's head. Any other interpretation is in my opinion, rendered completely invalid, given the context of the show.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

@_KCfox_ - now, watch it all again but this time set your confirmation bias to Se. Want it. Try to prove it. It can be an interesting exercise.

The question of N vs S should not be whether they show a lot of S or a lot of N so much as what the nature and thrust of that expression is. The point is that Brand shows a lot of Pe dynamics and also shows a lot of focus on ideas and concepts: N.

However, if you look closer and more concisely, you might find that his approach to 'N' is fairly rigid and subjective, and for lack of a better term a 'platform'. A big point on this is whether or not he freely inducts the perspectives or ideas or paradigm of others... or whether he stonewalls them with his own platform. This would definitionally show Ne vs Ni. That isn't to say that Ni types do not induct.. but they will not socially induct another perspective on the spot. This is why Ne types are seen as naive.

Another thing is how comfortable Brand is in his skin and with 'situational dynamics'. Despite some fictional depictions and mistypings, this is not a feature of Ne. If you isolate Brand's dynamics from the N running parallel to it, you might see they are not the same thing... but if you aren't focusing that a blue and a yellow dot might seem a green blur. 

Unfortunately, it is a typical bias to say that if Se is yellow and Ne is blue, that green is also Ne. That is because we seem to think that any show of N means N.... forgetting that N types show plenty of S all the time. It's an odd and a false dichotomy and a bias. That green blur just means that N and S are being used. 

I think the biggest place an Ne typing of Brand falls apart is in showing his inferior Si. He doesn't have it. A neurotic and inferior relationship with the sensory? No.

Also, he IS connected with his audience, and absolutely feeds off their reciprocation... but that is more a dichotomy of Fe and Fi than S vs N.

----

Also, not to derail, but I think Joss Whedon is an ILE.... perhaps it will show a good dichotomy?






Perhaps I think too much in those dichotomies.. but putting Brand in a lineup of Rachel Maddow (EIE) and Joss Whedon (ILE) and the whole thing just comes into sudden relief for me. Context!


----------

