What Emma Thompson's Personality Type Reveals About Her Comedy

Why do we find her comedy so good? That was the question. That's why I wanted to have a deep dive on her personality type analysis. Let's see what kind of MBTI cognitive functions take and what kind of objective personality type Emma Thompson has. Looking at her, she reminded me of Lisa Kudrow and Lisa Kudrow was objectively typed as a double feminine INFP so I'm thinking like is this the same type? Let's see. Of course looking at Lisa Kudrow here, I will bring up friends because it actually is relevant. So shows like that, why are they so popular? Answer is some of the characters in there I believe. Like the character Jennifer Aniston played in Friends or Matthew Perry played or same as Opus and Vicky Gervais. So looking at Emma Thompson and those people, what do all of them have in common? That's the question we're going to be looking at today. When I'm analyzing someone's personality type, I make use of what other people say about them and in Emma Thompson's case, we are lucky because I saw Ellen Rickman said something specific about her and Ellen Rickman was an INFJ jumper so he was an observer. He had a quick switch between self and others. He had his judging functions in the middle in the stack. So I actually can count on what he's saying about her. An easy, enjoyable person, she says the F word a lot. Why is that? Now I use objective personality framework to see what kind of cognitive function stack someone has and in order to do that, I'm using the coins in objective personality. The big ones are observer versus decider, self versus tribe and control versus chaos. If I get these right, it is going to give me their MBTI type. So let's start if we can see something about these coins in this video clip. You know Hopkins is going to do Silence of the Lambs 2. Is he? He is, he is. Is Thomas Harris going to write it? I'm not too sure but Hopkins is insisting on the naming rights. Huh. He's going to call it quiet all use. It was a tough training ground because they were very cutting. God, they could make you feel so stupid and so small. So what we see is that she's joking along, she's laughing and leaning a little bit on feeling above thinking. It doesn't mean anything but that's what I see. And what she said, they could make you feel so stupid and so small. That is telling me that there is a huge friction between self and others, between thinking and feeling. That's why I'm leaning on decider. So she has a decider function at the top and at the bottom. And the way that she was making those jokes, you get me out of here immediately. Don't you ever make jokes like that again. So it feels like the pressure is on others. Let's see. And here I will move on with another clip from the same video and we can focus on observer versus decider and self versus tribe in this clip. Pretend that I was comfortable asking you this question, but in the country you come from, they'd say it's not worth your job, governor, not to ask. Tell me about your marriage breakup, please. Oh, I wouldn't dream of telling you. I think it's about time we reeducated ourselves about, you know, how deeply impolite it is to ask somebody you have only just met about their personal lives. I mean, I wouldn't dream of asking you and I don't really understand why you feel that you have the right to ask me. I don't, I know. So, I mean, I know I don't, but, uh, you say and rightly how uncomfortable it makes you feel asking such a question. Of course it makes you feel uncomfortable. It's absolutely ridiculous. So it's time for journalists to turn around to their edges and say, do you know, actually, I don't feel comfortable asking that question. I don't think that I have any right to ask that question. Well, then son, I'll find someone who is comfortable asking that question. Yeah, I know. But if everyone said, I'm not going to do it. And on the other side, all the actors said, I will not answer that question. We'd soon get rid of it. So let's make a start. Well, okay. I wanted to ask you that question. How did she respond on that divorce question? It is a legitimately awful question to be honest for observers as well. But how does she respond? She has a huge friction between self and others. This is telling me that those are at the polls. She is actually a decider. And what else I see is that she doesn't naturally see the tribe unless somebody else is pointing it out for her, like what the interviewer did. And then what do we see? She says, why wouldn't the outside world just be like me? Why wouldn't the tribe behave according to my values? That is telling me this is self above tribe and it looks like Fi introverted feeling. So values and so on is at the top for her. She is an IP with lead Fi. Okay. In this video, she's talking about her past iconic roles and one very specific, important one to see some good parts of her. Let's have a quick look at this video clip and see if we can have an idea of her letters and her urges. She's my avatar. She's just this strange, magnetic, odd looking, female, deep, wise presence. Who's also anarchic, really supports protest of the right kind, believes that children should be heard and listened to is living proof of the fact that you should never judge a book by its cover. Don't bother with that nonsense. What I found interesting from the point of view of the films, I thought it would be fascinating to see someone who changes according to the way in which people are behaving around her and according to what's happening inside them and how they're changing within themselves. Does she become actually more normal looking or is it because they feel that they're beginning to settle their chaos? So there's something deeply elemental about her as a character, but also about my relationship. Okay. Let's have a quick look on her eyebrows. That is also telling me something. When she's talking from her heart, let's say the eyebrows are taking that shape because our face, actually the heart there is related to the functions. Okay. All the analysis about Nanny McPee and why is she calling that character her avatar? We're going to be talking about that. But in general, her language, she's talking about all the emotional layers of the character, values and so on. So that is telling me, feeling above thinking. And she was saying also, never judge a book by its cover, that I'm leaning on intuition above sensing. And if we are careful, we can see that all of those stories are from her perspective. So she's telling all those stories in NF land, in the hippie land, and they are all from self. And I see the connections are expanding. That's why I believe this is NF consumed. So here, what we see is extroverted intuition and introverted feeling working together. And then comes the questioning of the character. Does she become actually more normal looking or is it because they feel they're settling? So this feels like some nerdy hypothetical questions to me. That is when extroverted intuition and extroverted thinking are working together. We call that anti-play in objective personality. And let's talk about that transformation dynamic actually, because that is the juicy part. Movable self. That's what we're going to be talking about now. And I understand that it is not easy to comprehend if you do not have movable self. So I will try to do my best to explain it. What does this character value? Nanny McPhee. She was talking about how the character really supports the protest of the right kind and how she believes that children should be heard. Who would say things like that? Who would value this? This is the stuff you value if you are changing because of the environment. If the environment, if the others are not movable, then this is how you feel. The children should be heard because you were not heard. You didn't feel like that because of all the noise from outside. That's when you value this kind of stuff. And Nanny McPhee becomes more beautiful when the children around her improve their behavior. She literally changes according to how people around her treat her. This is such a clean visual metaphor for movable self. Self is not fixed. It responds to the environment around her. And then she even says it. It is fascinating to see someone who changes according to the way in which people are behaving around her. That is the definition of movable self. And in this clip, we're going to be seeing more proof and also some hints on her social type. When we were looking into and I was researching Saving Mr. Banks and finding out that, well, Roald Dahl, yes, Walt Disney, yes, Pamela Travers, also Beatrix Potter, presumably Enid Blyton, that people who write for children, as it were, they often write for the age where they were most badly damaged or where they needed the most comfort. And I found that really interesting. And then I remember that, of course, my father, who died young, wrote a thing called The Magic Roundabout, which was a sort of cult program in the 60s, which was designed for children, but which he wrote for everyone. He said, I don't want to write for children. Children don't exist. That's such a con. They're just people who haven't lived as long as we have. But what dad was doing, I think, is something that really means a lot to me, that he was writing for people, for everyone. It's patronizing to change your writing because you think you're writing for children and they're not going to understand the darkness. And Roald Dahl knew that very well. And he'd get letters from a little lad writing him saying, my mum's just hit me and put me in my bedroom for calling my sister a mollusk. And he would get letters from parents complaining about the language, you know, you can't use language like this for children. So he'd get out the Oxford English Dictionary, find all the longest and most abstruse words he could and write back using all of them. So he was mischievous like that. But he also saw something, I think, that's very true. We're all just people, you know, we shouldn't talk down to children. It's just this sense of a kind of cynical writing for children that I observe a lot. And I think that's not real writing. You're not recognizing your audience. This is your most precious, your most sacred audience. So you make sure that you write something that's better than you've ever written. Really focus. Because if you do that, people can watch it together. And that's a very precious thing, really a precious thing. So in a way, she's one of the most important people I've ever met. Okay, what do we see about the use of the language? First of all, she's dropping a lot of names. And that is, again, pointing me to a decider. Because if this was an observer, there would be some categorical mentioning of people. And we see she's valuing her weaknesses. If you write for everyone, then it is precious. The ultimate goal is connection, the tribe, which means her brain actually prefers the opposite. So individuality talk, self about tribe. Then she says, it is patronizing to change your writing because you think you're writing for children. We tend to see the shadow side of our weaknesses. When people are demonizing a behavior, and here we see that patronizing is demonized. That is the shadow side of lust. That's why I believe she has consumed above lust. And then there was the same longest, most obstruous, I don't even remember how it was pronounced. Pardon my English, please. So these kinds of words, when you have a spectrum of sensory extroverted sensing, you try to avoid this kind of words so that it is easily understandable by everybody. If you're using this kind of fancy words and so on, that is pointing me to introverted sensing. And about her social type, we are all just people. We shouldn't talk down to children. Everybody's equal, children as well. That is telling me friends about flags. And she was mentioning children again, the most precious, most sacred audience. So you make sure that you write your best, really focus. That means specialization about generalization. So I'm leaning on social porn. I wanted to add this little clip because I think this was one of the best examples of an ad. I mean, if he's a sort of Western, really, I watched a lot of Westerns with my dad. You know, the unorthodox authoritarian figure comes in to a chaotic situation and using unorthodox methods restores harmony to Western and then has to leave. That's the absolutely essential thing is that he or she or they have to leave. And that's what's so beautiful about it is accepting that you have to, you can love, but you have to let go. You have to be able to let go. She contains all the most important lessons of life. I think that first of all, is I really love the observation. And you can see how she is telling the end of the story from her perspective. Now we come to the prediction. Does the model work? This is actually the best feature of objective personality system that it is predicting the behavior when we have the right model. So I'm not showing this for every celebrity story, but for this one, I wanted to. So how are we going to see if we are right? Until now, I typed her as an INFP, F-I, and I believe she has playable sleep and she's an extrovert. Does this model work? That's what we're going to be looking at. Here is a video about the decider issue and actual legitimate harassment case and what I am expecting here. I will see that there's a huge friction between self and others. And what would a double activated play do here? She would ask questions. She would bring other people in the conversation. She will share awareness on what's going on around her. That's my expectation. Now let's see if this model, if this simulation works in reality. Um, I had only some business contact with him because Miramax owned Nanny McPhee for a while and were very, very difficult and obstructive about because his bullying behavior patterns also existed in his business world. And so my really main contact with him was shouting at him down the phone, um, that I never wanted to work with him ever, ever, ever. And so when I came into rooms where he was, which often happened, you know, he would, um, look, well, actually frightened. Um, because I think that's the sort of thing that happens if you call a bully on their um, avoid you. So you call, you called him out for being a bully to women. Yeah, not, no, no, not to women. This was in his business practice. I didn't know about these things, but they don't surprise me at all. And they're endemic to the system anyway. And I, what I find sort of extraordinary is that, you know, this man is at the top of a very particular iceberg, you know, and he's, I don't think you can describe him as a sex addict. He's a predator. That's different. He's as it were the top of the ladder of is, uh, a system of, um, harassment and, uh, belittling and bullying and interference and what, what my mother would have referred to in the olden days as pestering. Is he pestering you? That's the word we used to use in the olden days. If you recall, this has been part of our world, women's world since time immemorial. So what we need to start talking about is the crisis in masculinity, the crisis of extreme masculinity, which is this sort of behavior. And the fact that it is not only okay, but it also is represented by the most powerful man in the world at the moment. So when you describe him as being the tip of the iceberg, do you think there are others like that in your industry in Hollywood? Of course, many, many to that degree, maybe not to that degree. Do they have to all be as bad as him to, to, to make it count? You know, is it, does it only count if you really have done it to loads and loads and loads of women, or does it count if you do it to one woman once? I think the latter. Amy's sister, and we see that the model actually works. So she's asking questions. She's not waiting for any response from anyone. She's just showing the questions and she's well aware of what's going on around her. So that looks like double activated play to me. And oppressions and so on. And we can see still control is a weakness for her. So she's on the chaos side rather than control. She's on the gathering side rather than organizing. That's what we see. And she's trailing up when she's talking. So that is telling me that she's an extrovert. An extrovert in objective personality is defined by having an introverted animal lust. So I think she has sleep lust. Let's get to type reveal. So this is the type I came up with for Emma Thompson. I typed her as an INFP, a visual, if I any, consume, play, lust, sleep lust number four. So coming back to our original question, why do we like this kind of comedy so much? You know from Jennifer Aniston, Matthew Perry, Ricky Gervais and Emma Thompson. I gave these people as example. So what do all of them have in common? They all have self above tribe. So when they are deciding on something, they prioritize themselves than others. But the tribe, the people around them, the environment is actually the non-movable. And they feel the pressure from outside. But they all have savior friends. So they also see the tribe as their friends. That creates a social friction. And that's what we find funny, I think. Emma operates from pure FI, whereas her comedy comes from her internal world colliding with external expectations. That's what I see. It was really lovely typing her. And see you next time. Hello, my friend, I'm looking for people like me. If you enjoy the content I put out there, please do like and subscribe and be in this community. I am trying to build a community for people like me, for people who need this place where they can be exactly as they are and kind of an incubator for self-actualization. That's what I'm trying to achieve. I have recently started a project called Little Tale. I'm hoping to see you there. I'm hoping to have our group sessions where we explore objective personality points in a playful way. This is how we're going to be using our play to get to our sleep. And we will have the sense of community, a community where we are welcomed. We don't have to deal with all the negative stereotyping and so on. So if you're interested in a community, a supportive, collaborative community like that, please consider joining me in social media, wherever you're watching this. Please come as you are. You're always going to be welcomed here. I also wanted to mention that I started typing people. So if you like my subject, your opinion or your type, you can reach out to me on social media. And also I have this program. If you have a small group of people where you would like to explore team building activities, I would definitely suggest trying out my new program, Story Circle Sessions. So that might be really something that everybody would enjoy and grow together and have amazingly good ones together. Take care.