These are verbatim excerpts from correspondence with Michael Huber on the issue of 6s and 4s - and why and how they are often confused with each other.
Dear Michael,
Like you, I originally had no interest in seeing the movie 'Scent of a Woman'... but your letter convinced me to rent the video. In particular, I was interested in seeing how the movie might be used to justify typing Hitler as a 4. Like you, I am not convinced that it offers compelling evidence for that hypothesis. But I also have my doubts about Colonel Slader as a 4! I'll try to explain why.
But I want to preface my remarks by saying that movies can present a number of problems when it comes to typing. You pointed out some of these, with characteristic insight, in your early EM article -how confusion can arise from the fact that actors and directors can superimpose various (contradictory) 'types' onto the character created by the writer. In addition to these internal inconsistencies, and a general lack of insight in Hollywood into how to design realistic personality types, I also see a further complication. Movies, like dreams, can often be interpreted at two levels - one in which the individuals portrayed can be taken as persons with distinct personality types, in interpersonal interaction; at another level, however, movies can also be sometimes read as allegories concerning intrapsychic processes occurring within the writer. As far as dreams are concerned, it can be quite productive to take them as allegories, with all the characters in the scenario representing parts of oneself (and Von Franz interprets myths using a similar approach).
If one were to use the same approach in analyzing a movie, one might interpret one character as representing 'intuition' in the allegory, another 'feeling', or 'the masculine', and so forth - and the movie can be seen as showing how particular functions, along with other elements, are in tension in the writer, and what resolution is being proposed. Or the scenario might even demonstrate how a proposed reconciliation might fail. When the real action in the movie is occurring at the allegorical level it could be a mistake to try to insist on typing the characters in the same way one types individuals in real life. For instance, in the movie 'Wolf' (with Jack Nicholson), I think it is more instructive to see the wolf as allegorically representing 'intuition', and the movie as exploring what kind of problems (and benefits) can result if one is 'bitten' by intuition (or becomes 'in the grip', as Von Franz says, of the inferior intuitive function). When one begins to see the movie this way, one feels less compelled to try to assign a specific MBTI or Enneagram type to the Nicholson character, and realizes that it may even be counter-productive to try - as that process might obscure the allegorical intent of the author. This is why you hardly ever see someone like Von Franz assigning a specific Jungian type to the 'Baba Yaga', the 'third son', the 'king' or other characters in typical myths - it would simply be a mistake to do so, a misreading of the kind of a message intended by the myth.
But although a myth is not usually also a story about the interaction of persons of various psychological type, a movie can be both, and that is where the confusion sometimes comes in. I think there is also the possibility - and I see this happening often - where the writer thinks he is describing realistic external characters in interaction, but is after all really talking about what is going on inside him/her. Things can be further complicated by the fact that in bad movies in which both levels are present, the script may be written in such a way that the two levels are in conflict with each other, and provide us with inconsistent information, which can make things extremely confusing (and even emotionally disturbing) to the viewer.
So my question, with this movie (as with many others) is, Should the characters be taken as real life individuals (who can be psychologically typed), or as elements of an allegorical story about some intrapsychic process that is being explored? Our tendency, when we see human beings on the screen, is toward the former. So perhaps we should strive to compensate for this by developing skills in the latter approach.
Indeed, I think that 'Scent of a Woman' makes more sense at the allegorical level, in the end. It depicts something that happened (or was happening) in the intrapsychic life of the writer, perhaps. My hypothesis is that the writer, originally an ISTJ (and a 6?), experienced some sort of psychotic split (allegorically represented by the 'explosion' the Colonel sustained) in which he found himself 'in the grip' of the 'N' function. This was tantamount to a sudden shift to INTJ (and 4?) - but a strange INTJ indeed, in that his primary function (N) is in fact inferior developmentally.
[I would call the 'shadow personality' that takes over at this point a 'quasi-INTJ' and 'pseudo-4']. His sensory function was blindsided by a degenerate sort of introverted intuition. Alternately, one might say that he was experiencing a 'struggle' (between N and S) in his 'dominant' function! This threatened to lead to his death, through suicide (as inferior introverted intuition is associated with death; it 'picks up' on inner emptiness, in a negative sort of way). As the writer could not, any longer, simply ignore his inferior introverted intuition, which his unconscious pressed on him, and shift back to being a 'naive' ISTJ, a real psychological dilemma is posed. The solution, the movie tells us, comes in the form of an acknowledgment of his 'third' function (introverted feeling), represented by the young man. Precisely how this could operate as a solution to this predicament, I will try to explain below.
But let me start with the evidence that the writer's personality type was originally ISTJ.
Slader is depicted (as best as I can tell from the screenplay) as having a comparatively refined sensory capacity (and it is inwardly directed - he seeks optimization of his inner sensations). He distinguishes between this type of cigar and that, between a quality meal and what is merely 'edible'. He is seen as capable of sophisticated sensory discriminations of all sorts (has an appreciation for quality tailoring, fine cars, sophisticated women) and is capable of complex sensory tasks - he is an elegant practitioner of the Tango, and is capable of taking his gun apart and putting it back together efficiently and swiftly and without wasted movements. One might argue that the exaggerated quality of his sensory needs speaks to the fact that sensation is his inferior function - but it looks to me more like the writer's intention was to depict these refined sensory skills as having been learned in the 'pre-explosion' period of his development, in which he relied on sensation as his main function. And the exaggerated eagerness to attain sensory experience in the 'final fling' weekend depicted in the movie seems to indicate a desperate desire to recover lost sensory achievements.
If we take the 'accident' allegorically, we see that it represents a drastic reversal in dominant function taking place at that point in time marked by the 'explosion'. The (originally) dominant sensory function is incapacitated, presumably by a renegade 'intuitive' function which commandeers this person's psyche and threatens to result in literal death (which is the ultimate consequence of the inferior introverted intuitive urge toward 'objectless consciousness'). Slader's personality has been hijacked by intuition, and is leading him inevitably toward 'undifferentiated consciousness', in its negative form (as death). His inferior feeling function, in combination with intuition is what makes him potentially socially dangerous (not only to himself, but, as we shall see, to others).
Slader is an 'S' type at the beginning of his 'career'. But he is forced, because his 'opportunities' (which are usually associated with N) are severely limited by the dominance of a dogmatic sensory function, in the grip of inferior intuition - which just had to shake things up. The unleashed inferior intuition then gets the 'upper hand', and becomes frightening (remember how Slader freaks out about being 'in the dark'). And at this point, when intuition rears its inferior head, his experienced lack of personal options threatens to overwhelm him - life, for he who lacks 'intuition', has no discernible potential, other than to merge in death with the 'undifferentiated'! [Manifestations of inferior introverted intuition can be seen in some of Goethe's romantic heroes, in their unhealthy fascination with death, although there are also type-4 'romantic visions' that are built on advanced intuition.]
Juggling grenades, by the way, seems to me to be an interesting metaphor for the activation of inferior intuition - since intuition is akin to a kind of 'juggling', keeping all the possibilities in the air at the same time - and the grenades might, at any moment, (as they did in the storyline of the movie) explode and shatter the status quo that is so valued by the 'S-type'.
The 'explosion' (psychic shakeup and function-shift) takes from Slader his 'eyes', and deprives him of his main sensory channel, upon which he has relied all his life. Although he acutely develops other senses (smell) in compensation for this - and can distinguish precisely what perfume someone is wearing, and even infer what the individual might look like (in detail) - the sensory channel is perceived as no longer adequate. Now, 'blindness' is also symbolic of intuition - there are many examples of the 'blind prophet' - and blindness here usually means that one has 'turned inward' (away from the sensory world of objects to the 'invisible' world). Oedipus's blindness has, on occasion, been interpreted as the result of the onset of inferior intuition. And we can characterize Slader's 'blindness' as similarly the result of a mistake - which I interpret to mean that the writer, at some point, against his conscious intentions fell 'into the grip' of the unconscious (inferior intuition, in his case). Intuition came upon him 'out of the blue'.
Slader's introverted intuitive capacities are not well developed - he is not, for instance, good at interpreting the psychological meaning of symbols, or dreams, and is not particularly spiritual (as individuals with inner directed intuition often are). His intuition is mainly cultivated as a kind of 'instinctive' substitution (represented by 'smell') for his sensory handicap (a lower-level intuition, commensurate to a 'hunch', or ability to predict outcome, or even as an acutely accurate 'extrasensory' perception, but perception nonetheless). This tells us that despite being overcome by intuition, it is an underdeveloped function in him. [And although he is highly sensitive to power, and 'sees through' peoples political motivations, this is more in line with a type-6 inferior intuition, which runs suspicious - although it can also be politically accurate, especially in combination with thinking.]
'Thinking' is apparently a highly developed function in the writer, and this is reflected in Slader's analytical (and planning) capacities. He is capable of performing penetrating analyses (especially when the context is political [the province of 'thinking' types]). He knows the 'ways of the real world' - this is actually something that we, as viewers, come to look up to him for possessing. He can control situations - but this is not because he is intuitive, but because he has intellectual insight into what is happening (who is in control, what they want, and how he can manipulate them via this knowledge). Slader is the type of guy who can make things happen (has skill in 'cause-effect' relationships), the kind of guy you'd want as your lawyer (which is the role he eventually plays, with resounding success, in the last scene) - he knows the 'law' (the rules, how things work, and is able, as a result, to realize the external opportunity latent in the situation).
What about this guy's feeling function? It is rather underdeveloped, to say the least! Slader is depicted as having lived alone all his life. He does not fit in, longs for a relationship that is more than sexual (one that is longer than a one-night stand - remember his speech about this in the critical scene?). The young man, Charles, represents advanced 'introverted feeling'. He is profoundly moral (this is a sign of the presence of a cultivated feeling function). He 'cares' (which is represented by the fact that he is hired as Slader's personal care attendant). He cares about doing what is right, and he comes to care for Slader and what is happening to him. It is Slader's incipient relationship with the feeling function (allegorically represented by the entrance onto the scene of this young man) which, incidentally, presents us with the possibility of an intrapsychic reconciliation in the writer, by the end of the movie - when Slader is depicted as accepting 'masculine feeling' and integrating it into purposeful social action. Previous to that point, feeling is absolutely missing, is outlawed from the 'masculine'! Through his contact with the young man Slader is able, in the final scene, to relate to people (his niece and nephew) for the first time in the movie. But I take this, again, as primarily allegorical, and thus saying more about the writer (or whoever is ultimately responsible for the storyline) than about Slader as a real individual, who might be undergoing a real personality transformation.
Now Charles, who can be construed as an INFP (judging by the ethical stance he takes, and the 'medial' role he plays with Slader - he is his psychotherapist, in effect), is best taken as allegorically embodying an advanced feeling function - and represents the ISTJ writer's 'introverted feeling' (IF).
Initially, a strong introverted sensing type - with developed auxiliary thinking (manifest also in his interest in the military, and the power aspect of relationships), Slader is, initially (i.e., 'pre-explosion'), an ISTJ. His primary personal goal is to satisfy introverted sensory needs, which he does via 'thinking' (external planning): his last 'hoorah' is basically just this - he makes external plans to optimize his sensory acquisitions, after which he will permit undifferentiated consciousness (intuition) to descend upon him in death. He thinks that he 'needs' Charles only because he is 'blind' - his 'sensory' function alone is inadequate to his goals, and his unleashed intuitive function is disorienting. But what he really needs, at this point (and his sister, the feminine anima figure, allegorically 'knows' this and provides it for him) is an active and developed feeling function (which Charles embodies). The feeling function is embodied in another male, and this is (allegorically) significant, I think - the younger male symbolizing a new part of the writer's own masculine image, in other words.
Why is the development of the feeling function particularly called for in this situation? Let me try to explain it in this way - an ISTJ has the following functions: IS, ET, IF, EN (in that order of preference). In the grip of inferior intuition, it is as if a 'shadow' INTJ takes over the person, and that shadow would have the following functions: IN, ET, IF, ES. Notice what has happened: basically, the sensory and intuitive functions change position in the preference order and their directionality as well - intuition turning inward, sensing outward. But this is a near-impossible way of trying to incorporate intuition for the ISTJ, as it requires that he use his absolutely worst function (out of the eight possible functions), as his dominant one! And this also incapacitates the sensory function (makes him 'blind' to the sensory world). So a 'better' solution is depicted in the end of the film - what I will call the 'ENFP' solution. The ENFP uses the same functions (EN, ET, IF, IS) as the ISTJ, and they are also all pointed in the same direction as the INTJ! The only difference is the preference order - the ENFP has intuition (which is being pushed on the individual by the unconscious) as its dominant function, like the INTJ. But it is a form of intuition (extraverted intuition) that the ISTJ is comparatively used to, and it is not his absolutely worst function (IN).
So Charles, the young man, who manifests 'IF', brings Slader into a situation (the final scene) that constellates the ENFP energies within him. External opportunities (EN), opportunities for positive social change, are realized with the help of strong introverted feeling (IF), supported by Charles (the writer's INFP 'inner therapist'). Moreover, these positive social changes are realized, in a public forum - Slader (in his ENFP manifestation at the end) plays a positive social role, in the group. The movie, therefore, gives us hope not only for Slader's future, but, even more importantly, for the writer's!
So if I am right, the writer is telling us that he had to work on cultivating his third function (IF - introverted feeling), which led him, at long last, to performing a watershed altruistic act in a public setting, in order to achieve social change. His skills in externally directed thinking (ET) continued to be used to advantage, of course, in this scenario. In undergoing this internal process, his existence was, for a change, devoted to the service of others. And he birthed a new 'opportunity', a new social vision, for the positive gain of the group (the school). The vision was constructed out of his innate capacity for external intuition or opportunity-spotting (EN) and thinking/analysis / legal 'argument' (ET).
Now the connection of all this to Hitler is interesting. Although there may be some argument as to whether Hitler's intuitive function was his dominant or inferior function, I think that there is no question about Hitler having had an underdeveloped feeling function. This would mean that he was neither an INFP (in which feeling is the dominant function), or an INFJ (who has relatively developed feeling, and is interested in using introverted intuition, his inner 'vision', to create social harmony). Since we usually associate enneatype 4 with INFJs and INFPs, it might seem that there is no way Hitler could be a 4. But if Pat and I are right, the INTJ is also 'prototypical' of 4. And Hitler may have been an INTJ! This means he could have had a relatively underdeveloped feeling function (as reflected in a lack of social conscience and ethics), and yet still be a 4.
Myers says, 'Even when they are well-balanced, [INTJs] have a tendency to ignore the views and feelings of other people. Use of the critical attitude in personal relations is a destructive luxury than can have a disintegrating effect upon their personal lives. They would do well to use their critical faculty on their impersonal problems and on themselves and to work for some development of appreciation (they need not call it feeling) to use on others'. And Von Franz characterizes Nazi Germany as basically an 'NT' phenomenon, in which a 'vision' (N) for a planned (T) social change (that happened to be socially destructive) went unchecked (because of the presence of underdeveloped feeling).
But my hunch is that Hitler was not originally an 'INTJ', any more than Slader (or the writer of the movie) was. They are all, originally, introverted sensing types (and type 6s!), who fall 'into the grip' of the inferior intuitive function - and, therefore, may appear as INTJs (and 4s). [This is consistent with Castijello's view of Hitler as a 'sensory' type in the grip of inferior intuition - see the footnote regarding this in 'part 4' of our EM article]. And, just as the movie tacitly recommends work on the feeling function for Slader (and Von Franz recommends the same for Germany), work on the feeling function could have been the key to a solution to Hitler's psychological problem!
By the way, it is obvious that Hitler was not an INFJ (or INFP) type-4; that is clear. His alleged interest in 'art' was apparently superficial - I recently saw a documentary about art in Nazi Germany - the paintings that were suppressed by the Nazis (including numerous recognized masters) were aesthetic, moving, and richly steeped in feeling and introverted intuition - whereas the so-called 'art' that was pushed by Hitler was inferior, shallow, bland, and stiff. He had no appreciation for art as a manifestation of inner state, archetypal symbol, etc., although he was capable of rousing individuals to act on visions related to outer 'opportunities'. In any case, the combination of extraverted intuition and lack of feeling function is a potentially dangerous combination (socially).
Even when extraverted intuition acts as a dominant function in the individual, as it did in the 'unabomber' (judging from his manifesto), if it is not mediated by the feeling function, there is potential danger of antisocial change-oriented behavior. In the unabomber we have an 'NT' ...whose inferior sensory function has him idealizing old mother nature, to which he is pulled by a numinous attraction). His flaw is not the 'N' (or the 'T', for that matter), but an extremely underdeveloped 'F'!!! This is also Newt Gingrich's problem, his inferior function, which is what makes him so fearful of women, and what makes the new republican congress so frightening in general. For them the feeling function is associated with the 'negative mother', and is attacked as a 'black bitch', a tooth-mother threatening to devour us and suck us into the big black hole known as the 'deficit'....
PS: After writing the above I saw a movie that is very similar in structure to 'Scent' - the new Travolta movie, called 'Phenomenon'. Like what happens to Slader (in the implied 'explosion' incident), intuition hits the Travolta character 'out of the blue' - it literally falls on him as a light from the sky (a kind of 'enlightenment' experience, one could say), after which his intuitive capacities grow. Unlike Slader, however, his intuition is not inferior, and makes rapid developmental progress. Also unlike Slader, this guy has strong 'F' qualities - I would characterize him as an INFJ (as opposed to Slader's quasi-INTJ personality). He is interested in vision and possibilities, and in bringing about social harmony. I don't think that this movie is an allegory for transformative processes occuring in the writer (as in 'Scent') - I tend, rather, to believe that the 'enlightenment' experience is a dramatic device in this case, and that the writer is probably an INFJ and the movie an allegory for problems that the INFJ-4 has in being accepted in society. The intuitive, the visionary, is frequently scapegoated in our society - and there is a tendency to disbelieve him or her - what one Jungian author has described as the 'Cassandra complex', which she associates with strong N (prophetic) and F (socially conscious) individuals. To be a 'shaman' (often associated with INFJ visionary capacities) is to have the capacity to introject the deep-seated problems of the times, and work out a solution internally - which, in turn, has the effect of harmonizing the group (the society). There is a capacity for paradigm shifting, but the new 'vision' is oft-times threatening to the status quo and interpreted as subversive by the powers that be. Being a scapegoat and a shaman are very similar (though the latter is a more 'conscious' process, and one which does not involve as much masochism as the former).
The end that the writer has created for the character in this movie is rather sad, and speaks, I think, to the writer's problem in finding acceptance, as a visionary, in a society that resists change (and associated intuition-related paradigm shifting skills). The movie 'Powder' had a similarly sad end , as you'll recall. In fact, off the top of my head, I can't think of a film that depicts a positive outcome for that personality type - the NF socially conscious mystic is expected to resolve the situation by taking on the sins of the masses and offering himself up (often literally) as a symbol of reconciliation (ala Christ, or Gandhi, or Martin Luther King). This always seems to require some degree of personal self-sacrifice (eg, at least an 'ego' death)...
Footnotes/References
