Note (an additional for this, maybe?): For me, you can have any job whatever you like and don't determine who you really are if you have this major. People can and their different, different in their approach of psychology, in their mind too. So I think this can be apply for any others MBTI Types or anybody else. So, maybe in theory this is for INFJ but while in having some of this job is any other people.

Hm, good I think. Well, actually maybe someone have their different opinion and point of view to believe in. Or maybe I'm not changing my thought but yeah I respect people who speak up and for you research and typing in here and I too have different views in your opinion. But yeah you have the right to think what you want and keep up to telling this in their website.

Also, I'm a little confused by what you mean regarding someone's behavior? I know there are lots of reasons someone might be x or y way. My point was about making inferences and weighing things up in context. I don’t type by checking off behaviors per se but certain types are more prone to certain behaviors than other types due to how the functions in a certain order often manifest in certain recognizable ways. Of course "often" does not mean "always", and that is a very important distinction, but you still at the end of the say have to interpret or infer their best fit IDR type looking at their behavior to some extent even if the behavior is not the determinant in itself.

The "case-by-case basis" quote they used was evidence for Se (i.e. taking things as they come rather than via fixed formula), the whole video was only (or at least mostly) about Se vs Te and why Dana White fit the former (Se) rather than the latter (Te).

I actually maybe believe with what has been said from you but, I think that IDRlabs noticed in their video about he's and him cognitive function and their noticed about him geting job done by case-by-case standarts are I think it is Extraverted Thinking.

I know that the socionics are valuable tools too but I still think that you're include some of someone behavior which means that I dont think it's crucial for the evident (my opinion). But now good luck with your research.

For starters, I agree with IDRlabs that Dana White is an Se type, for similar reasons mentioned in their video. So very little needs to be said in that department.
 
Now, moving on, I disagree with them that Dana White is Fi-Te. Does the Fi argument stem from his passionate behavior? It's not a convincing one. (There's the argument that he's apparently loyal to his friends and family and makes character judgments of others but that's also very flimsy). I don't think he preferred Fi:
 
White: "I don't [like] talk[ing] about my feelings ... When you [see] talk about men's mental health and that men have to carry this burden ... [well] guess what? Somebody's got to get up. I have a family, right? I have children. I got to get up every day and go to work, and I have to, you know, do what I have to do. ... I don't give a shit about my feelings. ... Be a man I tell you, just be a man."
 
Does this sound like a person who cares or orients themselves to their inner feeling? I know that Fi is not 1 to 1 with the colloquial meaning of "feelings" BUT they do indeed overlap as Fi will indeed, more often than not, incorporate their inner sensitivities and the like into their evaluations. Dana White, on the other hand, seems to be rejecting his personal, inner sentiments in favor of a more impersonal standard.
 
He appears to be more Ti in which his decisions seem to be guided by a process of personal logical elucidation:
 
White: "I [continued the UFC during the pandemic because I] didn't get it, I couldn't wrap my head around the whole COVID thing. I was like, 'Wait a minute, if this thing is as bad as they're saying it is, we're all dead anyway. Are we going to hide from a fucking virus?' Come on, man. You could go into a restaurant with a mask on, sit down, take your fucking mask off, eat, and then put it back on? Just a lot of little fucking details like that don't make sense. ... We can't go to work but we can protest? We can all get together in a fucking protest but we can't go to work? I could poke fucking Swiss cheese holes in the whole fucking thing."
 
He attacks the logic of the people who enforce the COVID guidelines and what have you. With these things, it's not the stance he takes but the way he says them, focusing on (what he perceives to be) the logical fallacies and what not as opposed to personal values.
 
One might argue that his Te is more "pronounced" than most ESFPs, possibly "muting" his Fi to some extent (therefore conveniently chalking everything up to "overactive" Tertiary Te). But this ignores that ESFPs (even unhealthy ones) structurally prefer Fi over Te but even if we were to take the argument into consideration, I don't agree with the notion that he extroverts Thinking in the first place. Of the 2 Thinking Functions it is my contention that he seems to prefer Ti over Te:
 
White: “When you come in here on a Tuesday night, you have to make me say, ‘I have to have this guy or girl in the UFC.' You can be as talented as they come [but] this is your one shot, your one night. This sheet [of your stats] is all I know about you, I don’t read any of this before I walk in. When the fights happen, I see it. You show me tonight who you are. None of this [on the sheet] means [bleep] to me. This [sheet] means nothing to me. It’s great [that] you’re obviously here, you’ve got great records, you’ve done great things [but] show me tonight. On Tuesdays, it’s your night to show me what you are and what you’ve got. Make me say yes."
 
While many may say that the quote is mostly indicative of Se's preference for first-hand experience and swiftly grasping the immediate facts, another thing to consider is that he is neglecting statistical measurements altogether in favor of his inner idea in determining whether or not they have what it takes to be in the UFC. With Dana White, there is an inherent lack of reverence towards accepted models (someone who prefers Te is more inclined to at least take it into consideration). One might say that this quote could be a good illustration of Se with Ti at play, where (like in many STPs) the Ti principle is dependent on Se, reality itself (in this context, the actual performance of a fighter in the octagon). In other words, the Ti in STPs is often practical and connected to the manifest elements of reality rather than being academic.
 
On its own, Te types are more likely to trust external validity, but Ti types could reach that conclusion if it makes sense to them internally (and it does in a lot of cases). It's more about when push comes to shove, whether they rely on some kind of externally valid criteria or not. It's important not to jump to the conclusion that someone has Te just because one cites statistics, as many people do so. The difference lies in the orientation and selection of the premises. So if we were to take the possibility of Dana White being a (somewhat conscious) Te user into consideration, in an argument does Dana White multiply facts, piling facts upon facts (Te), or are those facts are only an addition to the core of his argument (Ti)?:
 
Interviewer: "Getting into the slap-fighting promotion. Um, not exactly how you probably envisioned working. ... Some good, some bad. A lot of you know, publicity, negative, your own issues as well. How is this playing forward into the next season? We saw promotions of it on there."
Dana White: "It's been incredible—the deal that I just cut for Slap is bigger than the UFC deal we cut with Spike TV after the first season of The Ultimate Fighter. I don't give a shit what the media says about it—they don't matter."
I: "So, money-wise, it's working out, is what you're saying basically?"
DW: "It's fucking unbelievable! Not only is it unbelievable money-wise, it's been unbelievable as far as social media goes. We're number one in all of sports—and when I say all the sports, if you take the NFL, the NBA, the NHL, F1, WWE, and ... add them all together, their numbers don't compare to Slap's."
I: "Um..."
DW: "Yeah."
I: "Seems a little doubtful."
DW: "Yeah, you can doubt it all you want."
I: "I mean I was covering for the finale of it and I saw the numbers on Rumble and there were people watching, but..."
DW: "There were people watching. It did 3.2 million viewers, and 1.7 million of them had never been to Rumble before."
I: "Well, I was one of those, for sure."
DW: "Thank you, I appreciate it."
I: "But it certainly... that number didn't show up on that counter that Rumble had today."
DW: "But that's how it works when you stream. When streaming, it's not really the actual number right there. Um, it's the same thing when you go live on Instagram. ... I mean, we were the biggest stream on a Saturday for Slap. The good thing is that most of you guys don't understand social media and how it works."
 
In this case, while Dana White does cite some “statistics” (please read this short article to better understand context: https://bloodyelbow.com/2023/05/08/dana-white-power-slap-social-media/), such as the number of viewers for the Slap finale, he does so in a way that is more consistent with Ti's propensity to coerce the facts to support their internal ideas than Te's tendency to admit more and more facts. As IDRlabs has said about Ti, "the Ti type can easily be perceived as a crank ... since the Ti type uses internal ideas that are derived from his own consciousness to evaluate external occurrences, he forever runs the risk of using the wrong idea to evaluate the data." Now, Te need not be slavish to external data but, all else being equal, they are more likely to give much more weight to it so that, as IDRlabs has said, "their concepts are neither as flimsy nor as easy for others to reject as in the case of the Ti type." 
 
Furthermore, this quote's description of Ti from "Teaching Jung" (which is in IDRlabs' article "Ten (Edited) Quotes About Cognitive Functions") very much (and self-evidently) applies to Dana White regarding the interview: “Extraverted thinking is interested in [data] that ‘holds true for everyone’ and proceeds to organize the external world [according to publicly] agreed definitions, whereas introverted thinking reflects on whether a particular construction [of the data] accords with the conviction of inner truth, regardless of what the received opinion might be.” 
 
I would like to note that I don't believe that Fi is the driving force behind this situation. It's true that individuals with Fi>Te types can often cling to their views in the face of dissenting facts (although I will add that EFPs are less inclined to do this than IFPs due to them not repressing Te), but at the core of this is a desire to hold on to their deeply held sentimental ideal (which I don't see this to be the case here). So based on the reasons I mentioned earlier, this appears to be mainly an expression of unhealthy Ti neglecting facts.

Overall, Dana White does not show a preference for aligning himself with accepted data.

Indications for a preference for Fe:

White: "The UFC ... has been a rocket ship of success since 2005, right. And I'm always telling them ‘I love you guys, this and that, we're a team, this and that’—the first time the shit hits the fan, I'm gonna start laying you people off in the scariest time in the history of the world? Uh-uh. This whole ship goes down, and we all go down together or not at all. … My employees are fucking scared. You know, [they're thinking] 'am I going to not get paid?' Some of them have kids, some of them are getting COVID—you know this type of shit’s happening. Mmm-mmm, not on my watch, brother. We're in this together. ... This is what I was telling my employees, right. [That] we're together [and that] we're going to get through this together."
 
In my view, he is displaying Fe in the quote; he is seeking a mutual adherence ("this whole ship goes down, and we all go down together or not at all"), situating himself and others as part of a common bond ("I'm always telling [my employees that] we're a team ... we're together, we're going to get through this together"). On a related note, IDRlabs notes that a well-developed ESTPs can utilize their Feeling function to establish a shared objective for an organization or group which I also find quite fitting here.
 
Additional Notes
 
This part focuses on a type's general tendencies rather than cognition, but it is still something I think should be considered. From your site’s ESTP description, I have found several links between your site’s ESTP description and how journalists and associates have described Dana White:
 
IDRlabs: "ESTPs are in many ways equipped with that extra savvy which allows them to do well in business as well as in life. ... Flexible and pragmatic, ESTPs typically see little need to do things 'by the book' - especially not if doing things 'outside of the book' will get greater results. ... ESTPs ... often have a strong charisma. They tend to have a way with people where they are extremely shrewd at connecting with them and convincing them of their plans. ... ESTPs are in many ways equipped with that extra savvy which allows them to do well in business as well as in life. ... [They have a] charming exterior."
 
Rolling Stone: "He’s taken mixed martial arts, a sport that was essentially moribund seven years ago ... and turned it into a moneymaking, crowd-frazzling sensa­tion ... He accomplished this by using various business-savvy strata­gems and dodges. ... How he did it really is by the force of his own multifaceted personality. At 38, he is ... charming, ambitious, [and] cunning.”
 
Gregg Doyel: "He's charming, persistent, persuasive and magnetic.”
 
Chuck Mindenhall: "He doesn’t always tell the truth, but somehow — through audacity and red-faced guile — White keeps pushing this sport into bigger and broader realms ... and upping his own ante."

Trump: "There's nobody like this guy, I'm telling you. ... He could do anything. He is so smart, so tough, so cunning."

Overall, these quotes paint the picture of someone who is cunning, persuasive, shrewd, and engages in gamesmanship, as opposed to someone who shoots straight from the heart. Generally sounds more ESTP than ESFP.

Contrary to IDRlabs ESFP typing, there is actually a really strong argument that could be made for ENFP as Bill Cinton’s type. Before I get to the functions, I would like to counter some of their claims that they have made regarding Clinton.
 
To start things off, they suggested that social psychologists are projecting their intellectual interest onto Clinton due to his high IQ, implying that Clinton himself lacks intellectual interests himself, saying "Social psychologists who work with the Big Five don’t always understand IQ as well as they should and equate it with intellectual interest, as, for example, some of Bill Clinton’s biographers have done. That’s likely because social psychologists are often high-O[peness] people themselves, so they read their own values into the analysis." I would disagree with that as there is evidence that Clinton did have an inclination towards intellectual interests (an intellectual engagement and curiosity that is separate from pure ability and intelligence):
 
Gabriel Garcia Marquez: "During his first campaign, Clinton had mentioned that his favorite book was 'One Hundred Years of Solitude.' ... I thought he had said it simply to pull in the Latin vote [but] after greeting me on Martha's Vineyard, he at once assured me that what he said had been quite sincere. ... When we asked him what he was reading, he ... mentioned a book on the economic wars of the future, author and title unknown to me. ... He asked us what our favorite books were. ... Clinton said [one of] his was the 'Meditations of Marcus Aurelius,' and Carlos Fuentes stuck loyally to 'Absalom, Absalom,' Faulkner's stellar novel. ... Clinton, in homage to Faulkner, got to his feet and, pacing around the table, recited from memory Benji's monologue ... from 'The Sound and the Fury.'"
 
Haynes Johnson: "Clinton likes to quote Machiavelli."
 
Clinton: "I like long books, raced through 'War and Peace' [by Tolstoy] at 22."
 
Clinton: "I feel like a character in a novel. I feel like somebody who is surrounded by an oppressive force that is creating a lie about me and I can't get the truth out. I feel like the character in the novel Darkness at Noon."

Harold Evans: "Clinton has had a problem finding space for his books in the White House. ... He is [a reading] omnivore."

Clinton: "[I would've liked to meet] Mark Twain. I would want to know what he believed and what was show."

So as shown, Clinton wasn't merely intelligent; he displayed genuine intellectual interest. He referenced and quoted complex literary works and the like. He was a voracious reader, drawn to lengthy and challenging material. All of which paints the picture of a person with a active intellectual life, not just someone with high cognitive ability. So based on that, we can say that the quotes I'm about to show below are not mere projections but observations/statements that do indeed hold actual weight:

Bob Woodward: "Clinton ... had an unusually broad national network of political, media, and academic friends, and displayed an obvious fascination with ideas."

Bob Woodward: "He was at home with ideas."

Rubenzer: "He liked pondering ideas and theories." 
 
Rubenzer: "Clinton ... took much ... pleasure in solving brain-teasing puzzles. ... Clinton was [very] much ... prone to value open-mindedness." 
 
Tom Rosenstiel: "He possesses ... a fierce thirst for knowledge and insight."
 
Secondly, IDRlabs has stated that "Clinton’s raw intelligence is legendary, but few people ever accused him of being prone to deep introspection." I would like to contend that there were indeed people who described Clinton as "introspective":
 
Haynes Johnson: "[Clinton] is a remarkably analytical, introspective person. To a degree that is quite stunning. ... Clinton ... was extremely, remarkably thoughtful and introspective."
 
Jerry Tarde: "[Thomas L.] Friedman had interviewed Clinton several times before at the White House ... he found the president most expansive and even introspective."

The Boston Globe: "The 42nd and 43rd presidents contrasted in many ways. ... Clinton was introspective and complex [while] Bush [was] breezy and unburdened by nuance."
 
Steven M. Gillon: "Clinton was introspective, full of doubt and uncertainty."
 
So as shown, there were indeed people who described Clinton as introspective so it's important to recognize that the idea of him "not exhibit[ing] a preference for introspection" is far from being something that is unanimously agreed upon. So while IDRlabs suggests that Clinton does not demonstrate a tendency toward introspection, numerous accounts have challenged this notion.

IDRlabs compares Clinton with Obama, saying "Barack Obama, by wide agreement, has a very high level of introspection, but has often been faulted for being indecisive and 'stuck in his own head' for this reason." It's interesting that they mention this comparison, considering Clinton has also faced criticism for similar things as stated here:
 
Bob Woodward: "Clinton would not fully commit to run. ... He set August as a personal deadline for a final decision, but the deadline slipped. Clinton had no campaign manager and not much organization. He appeared locked in a perpetual debate and argument with himself and with dozens of friends and advisers. His thinking never seemed to go in a straight line. He was unable to bring his deliberations to any resolution."
 
Los Angeles Times: "Clinton had written a speech and debated the pros and cons endlessly with anyone who had an opinion. But right up to the last moment, not even his closest aides knew which way he would go. ... Early in his career Clinton often appeared flatly indecisive."

New York Times: "In mainstream journalism, and even more so in popular entertainment, President Clinton is routinely depicted [as] a chronically indecisive man."
 
Why Ne over Se:
 
Now onto the actual functions themselves. It is my contention that his indecisiveness (at least in part) is rooted in his Ne. Don't worry, I won't bore you guys to death by bringing up the just previous mentioned quotes regarding his indecisiveness (those quotes were mostly counter arguments to challenge the idea that he was decisive if you get what I mean) because I have a quote that I think better directly illustrates his potential Ne:

Bob Woodard: "Clinton was even a step above Carter [in that] he could 'correlate' various ideas and issues. In many respects, Clinton was well suited to the presidency. He had a superior, inquisitive mind, especially when compared to Reagan, and was capable of genuine vision, especially when compared to Bush. But the very discord or range of opinion that Clinton craved in making his decisions often got him bogged down. Bentsen once described Clinton as the 'meetingest' fellow he’d ever seen. The very fact [is] that he wanted debate. ... The war for Clinton’s soul, that great struggle over which ideas and approach to use to guide the nation, continued unabated."

So as illustrated by Bob Woodward, Clinton, with his "inquisitive mind", was someone who "craved" (which is a important word here) a wide range of perspectives before making decisions to the point of getting "bogged down." As Mary Arrington has said in the article "ESFP vs. ENFP, Part 2", "Because of this focus on multiple possible perspectives on reality at the same time, ENPs are actually quite poor at dealing with situations where it is necessary to engage with factual reality as it is happening here and now." Se types can also be interested in other perspectives, yes, but they typically don't get "bogged down" by them. It is also reasonable to assume that his "struggle over which ideas and approach to use to guide the nation" comes from Ne's tendency to, as said by IDRlabs, "not subsume or reject the individual component that makes up the whole but aim to afford each its own place in the overall unity."
 
IDRlabs implies that Clinton lacked the transcendental aspects of Ne but I disagree with this. First lets see what IDRlabs meant by "transcendental" with regard to Ne: "Ne types may not even recognize that they have it in themselves. But it is nevertheless there and stems from the fact that Ne is bound to always be dissatisfied with the world in its current state. In the words of Isabel Myers, the Ne types 'regard the immediate situation as a prison from which escape is urgently necessary.' ... The escape from the status quo is worth more to the Ne type than the world as we know it." I think this very much applies to Clinton, he was not someone who was at home in his current context but sought to go beyond it:
 
Bob Woodward: "But Paster was, once again, amazed at Clinton’s willingness to allow these extended debates where they essentially talked to death the inevitable. Clinton was always trying to pick out a new course, move the debate or the policy slightly. The dynamic had a pattern. Clinton, unaccepting of the conventional wisdom, especially about Congress, would test the edges of what was possible, stretching the boundaries of the Washington and congressional playing field."
 
So as shown, Clinton "was always trying to pick out a new course" and "unaccepting of the conventional wisdom" and had a desire to "test the edges of what was possible", all of which paints the picture of someone with tendency to look beyond the immediate and explore novel solutions and approaches (the transcendental quality you guys talked about). The willingness to engage in "extended debates" can also be linked to Ne's comfort with exploring various theoretical angles, as well as van der Hoop's observation that Ne finds self-expression easy, which could manifest in prolonged discussions.
 
His divergence from the status quo got to a point where leaders around the world at the time called some of his initiatives "novel, bizarre and unprecedented" and "something like a UFO" as shown here:
 
The Washington Post: "French President Francois Mitterrand and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl were quoted by aides as saying they could not believe Clinton wanted to affix his name to [his initiative]. Calling the plan 'novel, bizarre and unprecedented,' spokesman Jean Musitelli said Mitterrand judged it to be 'something like a UFO.'"
 
Another way to differentiate Se and Ne (or S vs N in general) is that Se stays with the object while Ne bypasses the object. As said in the IDRlabs article "A Definition of Se and Si", "Intuition is not Sensation with an extra layer: Intuition oversteps the object, while Sensation remains with it." Clinton seemed to be more geared towards always moving beyond the initial data:

Bob Woodward: "Stephanopoulos was practically jumping out of his skin. He had seen Clinton act like this before; disliking, discarding, or wanting to change what he read. [Clinton's] initial reaction was always to ... force more discussion and debate."
 
("Always" being a key word here as it indicates that this was something habitual for Clinton as opposed to something that was just a one-off.)
 
Another point for Ne was his verbosity and long-windedness. Yes, I am aware that Se types can be talkative too but overall the tendency to be loquacious sounds more Ne than Se:

Rubenzer: "Clinton was very talkative, wordy, and verbose."

Time Magazine: "[He was] notoriously long winded."

Politico: "[He was] known for his long-winded and meandering speeches."

One could draw parallels with this and Fidel Castro and Muammar Gaddafi (both ENFPs), both of whom were also known for their long winded conversational style and speeches.
 
Final Note

Okay so this last part is going to be the weakest part of my argument but it's still something to consider. In the IDRlabs ENFP description it says, "The ENFP will naturally see things from the point of view of the outsiders and seek to champion their cause. ENFPs tend to be incredibly accepting of people, even accepting of those who may have drastically different stances on things than they do."
 
Steven M. Gillon: "He enjoyed talking to everyone, but had a special affinity for reaching out to people who were different, or somehow out of the mainstream."

So, well now I wrote this text and in truth not only what I've been said this isn't based on the research or even I didn't have any data to prove with. In fact, you can search it by yourself if you want and there is now that technology is advanced and sophisticated, so go ahead and find the evidence yourself and share it here. Then I'll try to change my mind. Okay! Thank you.

Introverted Perception

Waltz: "I don’t like improvisation. I am not a writer and creating a script is a writer’s job. Mine is to interpret it. I wouldn’t like it if an author came up and told me how I should play a scene. That said, I think I also don’t like improvisation because I am not very good at it!"

Se/Ne prefer to "riff" on the external world in real time while Si/Ni prefers to take things down into a "internal laboratory" and work through it. All else being equal, the quote above suggests introverted perception (Si/Ni) over extroverted perception (Se/Ne).

Why Si over Ni

Per IDRlabs regarding the difference between Ni and Si, "the Ni type’s train of thought operates by unconscious amplification and association, not by ... elaborating on the meanings found in singular objects and instances (as with the S type). The factor of amplification by association is much more forceful in Ni types, whereas Si types prefer to stay with the one task at hand. As Jung also says, 'the Sensation type remains with things' (Tavistock Lecture I §33). This 'thing' may be big or small, abstract or concrete, long- or short-term, present- or future-oriented, but the common denominator is that the psyche of the Si type stays in harness throughout the task set before it, whereas the Ni type leaps between objects and tasks by way of association and amplification of the individual objects to fit an overall process of association, rather than staying with the individual object in itself. The Si type may also operate by amplification, but it is usually by way of the concentration and patient focus on the amplification of one object that the Si type reveals himself."

To my mind, Christoph Waltz does not align with the Ni type's tendency to leap "between objects ... by way of association and amplification of the individual objects to fit an overall process of association" but rather stays with the specific task at hand:

Waltz: "I try to follow the lead of the writer, and the script ... and find what's in the case at hand and not so much in the generalization of, for example, the genre or the actor's persona. I really make an effort to stick to the individual character because it serves a very specific purpose. And without the specificity you have more or less nothing."

Another quote where I find his Si quite prevalent:

Waltz: "When Jochen Rindt was racing ... I remember everything about his crash; I remember exactly where I was, all the details. I’m not particularly into motor racing, but I am into the tyre changes, the pit stops. It is the most incredible thing to watch. That’s perfect co-ordination between people and all their motor senses, every movement perfectly rehearsed. Each person is 100 per cent perfect and then it’s ten people together! The efficiency is breathtaking. The cars are machines, and that’s interesting too, of course. But this is ten people doing something which takes effort, concentration, knowledge and practice. It’s like playing a musical instrument."

(Furthermore, we could also argue for Te in that quote, focusing on and admiring the external mechanics like the efficiency of the tire changes.)

Ni types utilize their Te/Fe to arrange things to align with their Ni visions, which are holisitc, radical, removed from daily life, and are accompanied by an unwavering conviction that tends to hinder collaboration or compromise when implementing them. On the other hand, Si types approach decision-making and organization more meticulously. Their Te/Fe serves to make decisions in accordance with their Si observations, which are detailed, practical, and grounded in everyday realities (even if it's with a personal angle). Waltz fits the latter moreso than the former:

Waltz: "I have a less romantic and idealistic approach to acting. Over there [Germany], the business is based on mediocrity. On a high level, admittedly, but mediocrity. You reach a certain level, beyond which you will not go. Not just in career but in challenges and opportunity. It's interesting for the specific issue of how to cope with an actor's life. To lead an actor's life. What do you do if you have a stretch of five years where you only get mediocre offers and nothing to sink your teeth into? That's where it is difficult. Becoming an actor is one thing. Being an actor is entirely different."

Waltz: "[I do acting because] it's my profession, no different than it is for any other profession. In medicine, the best caregivers are those without passion. The doctors that are too passionate are very often the ones who make serious mistakes."

Lastly, one may even argue that his frustration of the lack of the thoroughness of others with regard to film may be indicative of Si:

Waltz: "[Dialogue in film] should be dealt with equal attention and diligence [as the visuals], but sadly it isn’t. You only have to listen to people talk on the street, unless they’re talking this gibberish that seems to be the main mode of communication now."

Inferior Ne:

ISTJs repress Ne, which is the function that is correlated with easily expressing oneself verbally. They, similar to ISPs, can dislike prosing their work:

Waltz: "I think it is absolutely ridiculous that actors go on their bonus DVD interviews and explain what they were doing. That’s not what an actor does. ... It’s completely counterproductive for an actor to talk about his part."

Waltz: "I don’t like talking about [my roles]. If you go into a restaurant and you have been served an exquisite meal, you don’t need to know how the chef felt, or when he chose the vegetables on the market. I always feel a little like I would pull the rug out from under myself if I were to I speak about the background of my work."

Another aspect of repressing Ne in Si dominant types is that this could lead them to seek to stay true to a select few ideas over diverting to a multitude of ideas, as is the case with Waltz:

Waltz: "Whether it’s a job, a relationship, even a hobby that you follow for your own amusement: eventually, you get to the point where perseverance is what’s needed."

Waltz: "What keeps you going is stubbornness, economic necessity, or simply endurance. ... You need persistence."

[When asked about equestrian]
Waltz: "Riding is like singing, you need to do it on a regular basis to do it elegantly and so it is at least sufferable for the other creatures involved, be it your family at home in terms of singing or the poor horse in terms of riding."

Additional Notes:

Regarding Te, some of Te can be seen in the "Jochen Rindt" from the quote before but here's another that I think could be indicative of Te:

Waltz: "It's the result that makes the art, not necessarily the process that leads to it."

In regards to the evidence of my Lewis Carroll voters

So, now I keep seeing that people would confuse this person with XNTP types when I saw on the MBTI community especially on the Personality Database or whatever a website could easily took someting until misunderstood it. I think of those voters or even according to any systems like IDRlabs cannot take thing seriously or at least until people would search this person (Lewis Carroll) it's deeper of an iceberg, like you got to dig diver it until your understand it. I agree or understand with what user Woll Smoth vote about Princess Ariel as an Se users and I compare that with this person (Lewis Carroll) and yeah and I know can imagine that too. If you want me to elaborate all of my research and reasons, I said I mean with this according to many website and biography videos I think people would judge it with Introversion and some people would arguing "yeah he is sound kind a high Ne users" and etc etc, but isn't. I really dig diver some new information about this probably 1 years ago and I've summarized it as best I can for evidence, but some of it may be missing or lacking because I'm too lazy to write it here. So, in short, this person is incline to hereticism and spiritualism and as users Woll Smoth said about ENFJs “the ENFJ tends to have an intellectual, even scholarly, side which they use to delve into abstract problems concerning the whole of society, if not the world. In truth, most ENFJs are quite comfortable juggling complex facts and challenging situations that require a firm grasp of the theory involved.” And I think again some people maybe said that "oh, it is because he is conservative anglican pious christian and pervert? Or even bad, he is a bad person 'cus pedophilia bla bla bla..." no it is not the main REASONS and I want to tell the truth, mostly because I hardly quoted none quotes on here because he is too private as a person and only be recorded at his letters or he's acquitances and I pleased to someone don't be too quick swiftly judging any others MBTI as a bad and unappropiated because one of the cognitive functions is different which makes you differentiate between other types. Okay so next by the way I'll shorten this I now compare it with any other famous person in IDRlabs one of them is with the INTJ personality, as I get the similarity with it is Isaac Newton and I yeah I get that the analogies between their behavior, thinking and yeah probably they're had an in commonly same and insanely it is so perfect that there is no difference at all! If so, you can check the truth of what I said earlier by reading his biography, autobiography, an interview with original sources such as his relatives, siblings, etc. Until you want the most extreme level, you can search and ask in the community and try to criticize which mistakes you want to state then tell me then I will change my way of thinking and my voters and give me questions (anything) up to you so I can state which errors and where my mistakes lie. Also one of his illustrator, Sir John Tenniel said that someone who a fussy and authoritarian behavior that demands everything to be perfect until the book is published. Well, maybe at this point there will be someone who will point to evidence in the form of a biographical film, right? It's fitting that I see the community criticizing some of the inconsistencies in the behavior in the film and the personality of the person behind his work. Actually, this Mr. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson or his anonymous name known as "Lewis Carroll" is indeed very difficult for us to understand for those who are unfamiliar and don't understand how this person's way of thinking. Indeed, when I read one of his biographies, it was quite surprising and confusing why this person was one of the people I analyzed who was the most different. And yes, I began to realize that he was actually a dominant intuitive and I think he did have an abstraction in creating a work that was very irrational and dependent on someone's imagination which made me definitely put him in the dominant intuitive category (and one of his friends, a member of the Rossetti family, said so). But I thought again, Why isn't Ne dominant, ENTP maybe because he is a thinker?, so what I just said is that this person is basically very abstract and has a few percent for him to be a Sensor because he can also master the intellectual field and academic conversations or something related to that. So I sorted him back to another possibility, namely Ni is dominant in his cognitive function. But there are also people who say that he is S, including IXTJ or something like that. "Oh, why not other introverts like IXXP or IXXJ, why do you say he is in the IXTJ category, IXTX is a heartless thinker or something..." Well, that's my opinion, yes, he might use Te because he is structured in other words regarding goals and targets. As the quote from user PDB (Personalty Database) said about the Tekken 8 character Jin Kazama "I agree that Jin is Ni dom but he seems more Te-Fi>Fe-Ti. In the Tekken 6 storyline (which is controversial but it's canon regardless of what people think) he seems so contingent to marshal facts for the sake of actualizing a personal goal." or "Jin's judgment seems tailored towards measurable solutions that are tailored towards a particular end, All else being equal, when criticizing something, an INTJ is more likely to put emphasis on the practicality of the idea than an INFJ, hence why he says "Does it really make a difference?" Another thing to consider is that, as IDRlabs puts it, "INTJs have auxiliary extroverted thinking. Since their thinking is directed outwards, they prefer for their judgments and plans to be oriented towards the actionable. While their ruminations and visions might be just as lofty as those of the INFJ, the concrete takeaways from their thoughts tend to be much easier to translate into practical reality. They want to construct a clear path from abstract vision to concrete reality; to shake the world with their thoughts in a way that makes the 'impossible' possible. This fits Jin well." And well, this is the conclusion yeah that it is, and if time permits, I will look for some quotes or more or less examples in his other autobiographical books.