ผู้คนและตัวละคร
วรรณกรรม
Anna Karenina
{{ชื่อ}} ประเภทบุคลิกภาพ MBTI

{{ชื่อ}} ประเภทบุคลิกภาพ MBTI

Anna Karenina ประเภทบุคลิกภาพ

บุคลิกภาพ
ชีวประวัติ
บุคลิกภาพ correlate
อักขระที่คล้ายกัน
ลักษณะและลักษณะ

บุคลิกภาพ

"Anna Karenina ประเภทบุคลิกภาพประเภทใด Anna Karenina เป็นประเภทบุคลิกภาพ ENFJ ใน mbti, 4w3 - sx/so - ใน Enneagram, SLUAI ใน Big 5, EIE ใน Socionics"

Surprised at all the disagreements because I’ve always thought of her as an ENFJ poster-child. I suppose it is less clear in the movie than the book, but the whole point of Anna Karenina is that she explores motifs of family values, ethics, social duty, social consensus, etc. Fe judgement deals with ethics, not morals. While Fi-morals is concerned with (usually ontological) right or wrong, good or bad, authentic or dishonest, etc. — Fe-ethics is concerned with “Is this socially acceptable? Does this affect the status quo? Does this upset others?” And while those concepts overlap, Anna’s conundrum definitely falls into the latter. The story as a whole is valuable to the domain of ETHICS. Anna is extremely conscious of how she is perceived, and how her actions affect others. The entire structure of the movie, specifically, was to demonstrate this. She is also a very empathetic character, good with words, and bringing about feeling-neutral. All of her emotions are derived from her social environment, she is utterly concerned with people. And from a completely anecdotal perspective, I find that FJs tend to find themselves being “the other woman” or in cheating scenarios far more than some Fi users. I think this is partially due to Fe’s desire for objects of affection. But also because Fe-ethics is a center that doesn’t always hold. It responds to the environment, which is always conditional and changing. What I mean by this is that Fe’s lack of moral framework (aka sense of inherent right or wrong) leads them to apply logic (Ti) to these situations. They might conclude: if his wife does not KNOW about the affair, then I am not hurting her. Whereas an Fi user in this situation would not have as much inner-conflict as she did, like Vronsky for example. This is because for Fi-users, the feeling is valuable IN ITSELF. This might look like simply being transparent about the affair to some degree (ie Juliet Capulet), or not entertaining the affair at all (if the Fi-user had a strong moral judgement against unfaithfulness). In both cases, the feeling is left unjustified. They are based on personal value judgements. Additionally, Anna responds well to shame and guilt, which doesn’t really pertain to Fi as much. Towards the end of the novel, we see her delving into her SeTi—for example, she doesn’t care about the formality of the divorce, she just wants to run. This contrasts with Vronksy’s TeNi, which cares about the legitimacy of the divorce, and wants to plan their departure correctly. Ti doesn’t care about the hard rules of marriage contract, law, etc. — only the social ones, which she has already lost. We also have to stop typing characters as ideal versions of each function (“She can’t be Fe because Fe is when selfless”)—if that were the case, what is the point of telling a story? Do you guys think Fi is the only function with free-will?