And as I always say, *don’t* start here!  You’re going to be so ridiculously confused if you do!  Are you one of those people that flips to the end of the book?!  Well, you can’t do that with this!

So far, on Cognition – The Super Simple Version…

Our minds prioritize information according to what’s the most important to us, the information we love the most.  Likewise, our minds process that information with the functions that best fit for our underlying objectives for that type of information.

In Part 1 we learned about the Four Types of Information, and that when we think, we all use all of them, just in different orders.

In Part 2 we learned about the four functions.  We learned that there are two Compilation Functions–Sensing (experiences) and iNtuition (concepts)–and two Application Functions–Feeling (meaning) and Thinking (use).

In Part 3 we learned that cognition steps are each made up of one Type of Information and one function, and each cognitive type is a unique combination and order of four of those steps.

Remember we discussed that the Four Types of Information are what we think about, the functions are how we take in and use that information, Judging and Perceiving are when we prioritize each type of information, and Introversion and Extraversion are where we get information.

And we derived the four cognition orders from requirements we got from the definitions themselves.

IP – Data -> Observation -> Action -> Principles
EP – Observation -> Data -> Principles -> Action
IJ – Principles -> Action -> Data -> Observation
EJ – Action -> Principles -> Observation -> Data

Requirements:

1. Perceivers use Perceiving first, then Judging.  Judgers use Judging first, then Perceiving.
2. Introverts use an Information Toi first.  Extraverts use an Action Toi first.
3. Introverts use Data before Observation.  Extraverts use Observation before Data.
4. “Specifics” use a Specific Toi first.  “Universals” use a Universal Toi first.
5. “Specifics” use Action before Principles.  “Universals” use Principles before Action.

We also learned that Judgers and Perceivers don’t think of Action the same way, with Judgers using Action like a map and Perceivers using Action like a toolbox.

 

 

And finally, in Part 4, we talked about the four possible Function-Combinations and why they always went with particular Types of Information:

When a Compilation Function (Sensing or iNtuition) is Extraverted (Se or Ne), it is always Observation— a pattern-finding database of individuals and their motives.

When a Compilation Function (Sensing or iNtuition) is Introverted (Si or Ni), it is either Principles (Js) or Action (Ps)–an internal playground of information pattern-finding.

When an Application Function (Feeling or Thinking) is Introverted (Fi or Ti), it is always Data–bullet points of information inside your head.

When an Application Function (Feeling or Thinking) is Extraverted (Fe or Te), it is either Action (Js) or Principles (Ps)–applying either meaning or use to your external environment.

Wow, that was quite the review!  Let’s just pick right up where we left off with the Function-Combinations.  I said in the last post that the four Function-Combinations are the four possible ways to start the cognition process.  Well, that’s the perfect way for us to begin assembling the sixteen cognition processes!

The four Function-Combinations are the four possible ways to start the cognition process

I’m going to walk slowly through one of our four Function-Combination options, deducing what we can tell just by knowing that someone starts with that Function-Combination, but then we’ll go faster through the other three.

So, we know that everyone uses all four Function-Combinations at some point in their cognition processes.  But let’s imagine someone who starts with Extraverted Compilation as their First Cognition Step.

 

We learned in Part 4 that Extraverted Compilation (EC heehee) is always Observation & Motivations.  Let’s ignore the fact that we learned who does Observation as their First Cognition Step in Part 3 and find it again.

 

Observation is part of the Perceiving half of the cognition process, and we learned in Part 3 that Perceivers (P) Perceive first, before Judging; therefore, anyone whose First Step is Perceiving (Observation) must be a Perceiver.  So someone who starts with Extraverted Compilation must be a P.

 

We also learned in Part 3 that if a person looks outside themselves first for information, in other words if they Extravert their First Step, then we call that person an Extravert (E).  So if someone’s First Step is *Extraverted* Compilation, then they must be an E.

So if a person’s uses Extraverted Compilation as their First Cognition Step, then they must be an EP.  And guess what?!  We learned in Part 3 that EPs’ First Cognition Step is *Observation!*  Yaaay!!!

We learned in Part 3 that if a person uses a Universal Toi (Type of Information) first, that it makes them a “Universal” type, and it also means that they use Principles before Action, while if a person uses a Specific Toi first, they’re a “Specific” type and they’ll use Action before Principles.

 

Well, you’ll also see that Universal cognition types start first with Compiling zoomed-out information to see how things always work.  Specific cognition types start with Applying zoomed-in information to specific circumstances.  Makes sense, right?

 

 

EPs use Universal Action (Observation & Motivations) first, so they’re Universal types, and they use Extraverted Compilation first!  See how everything fits together and cross-checks?  It makes it stupidly hard to explain simply, but it’s also really cool, imho.

Alright, let’s go through these Function-Combos a little faster, shall we?

 

So again, a cognition process starting with Extraverted Compilation: Always used for Perceiving; therefore P.  Extraverted; therefore E.  Compilation; therefore Universal.  EP, starting with Universal Action; Observation & Motivations using either Se (Extraverted Sensing) or Ne (Extraverted iNtuition).

 

 

A cognition process starting with Introverted Application:  Always used for Perceiving; therefore P.  Introverted; therefore I.  Application; therefore Specific.  IP, starting with Specific Information; Data & Details using either Fi (Introverted Feeling) or Ti (Introverted Thinking).

Now, the Judging Function-Combinations might seem more complicated, but we do know they’re always used for Judging even if they’re used for different Tois.  We also know that if a person uses Judging first, then they’re a Judger (J), so from that we know that they’ll be using the Function-Combos in Judger ways.

 A cognition process starting with Introverted Compilation: Always used for Judging; therefore J.  Introverted; therefore I.  Compilation; therefore Universal.  IJ, starting with Universal Information; Principles & Trends using either Si (Introverted Sensing) or Ni (Introverted iNtuition).

 

A cognition process starting with Extraverted Application: Always used for Judging; therefore J.  Extraverted; therefore E.  Application; therefore Specific.  EJ, starting with Specific Action; Actions & Consequences using either Fe (Extraverted Feeling) or Te (Extraverted Thinking).

See how all the possibilities are covered?  Each Function-Combo is used first by *someone,* and the rest of their functions follow from their First Step, just like everyone’s cognition order followed from the first Type of Information they used.  It’s so interweaving and perdy! <3  And all the options possible, based on the definitions, exist!  All the bases are covered!

Okay.  /end geek-out.  But here we now have 8 types:

 

Step One

If a person’s First Cognition Step is Observation & Motivations via Se, then they’re an ESP, an Extraverted Sensing Perceiver.  (See how that works?  They’re using Perceiving, Extraversion and Sensing first?  I swear all the multi-post lead-up was important, even though the end result is that simple.  That’s all that ESP means, this is their First Cognition Step.)  That means they start their cognition process by watching individuals to compile possibilities and to understand motives based on their experiences of what they’ve seen people do.

 

If a person’s First Cognition Step is Observation & Motivations via Ne, then they’re an ENP, an Extraverted iNtuitive Perceiver.  That means they start their cognition process by watching individuals in order to compile possibilities and to understand motives based on concepts of what people can do and how people work conceptually.

 

If a person’s First Cognition Step is Data & Details via Fi, then they’re an IFP, an Introverted Feeling Perceiver.  That means they start their cognition process by pondering the details of a situation in order to understand and apply the inherent significance of specific situations and to ask questions that help them discover meaningful possibilities.

 

If a person’s First Cognition Step is Data & Details via Ti, then they’re an ITP, an Introverted Thinking Perceiver.  That means they start their cognition process by pondering the details of a situation in order to understand and apply the inherent benefits of specific situations and to ask questions that help them discover useful possibilities.

 

If a person’s First Cognition Step is Principles & Trends via Si, they’re an ISJ, an Introverted Sensing Judger.  That means they start their cognition process by pondering on how the world has worked in their experience in order to compile core principles of how things always work, and predict trends of how things will continue to work.

 

If a person’s First Cognition Step is Principles & Trends via Ni, they’re an INJ, an Introverted iNtuitive Judger.  That means they start their cognition process by pondering on how the world works in concept, in order to compile core principles of how things always work, and predict trends of how things could work.

 

If a person’s First Cognition Step is Action & Consequences via Fe, they’re an EFJ, an Extraverted Feeling Judger.  That means they start their cognition process by watching the cause-and-effect of people’s choices in order to understand and apply the inherent significance of decisions and to chart the most meaningful course of action ahead of them.

 

If a person’s First Cognition Step is Action & Consequences via Te, they’re an ETJ, an Extraverted Thinking Judger.  That means they start their cognition process by watching the cause-and-effect of people’s choices in order to understand and apply the inherent benefits of decisions and to chart the most useful course of action ahead of them.

 

Quoth Brian Regan profoundly, “Say EIGHT!!”  Here we now have eight cognitive types, which cover all the possible options.  We multiplied the 4Toi (Four Types of Information), by two possible functions for each one (two Compilation and two Application) to get eight types.  But you may remember I said there were sixteen unique cognition processes.  Well, let’s cleave them in two again by using the *Second* Step of the cognition process. :O

Step Two

For everyone’s Second Cognition Step, they finish out either Judging or Perceiving and they switch whether they’re Compiling or Applying information, as well as whether they’re looking outside or inside (Extraverting or Introverting functions).

If a person’s Second Cognition Step is Data & Details via Fi, then they’re an EFP, an Extraverted Feeling Perceiver.  That means they ponder on what their observations from their First Step can show them about the details of a situation in order to understand and apply the inherent significance of specific situations and to ask questions that help them discover meaningful possibilities.

 

If a person’s Second Cognition Step is Data & Details via Ti, then they’re an ETP, an Extraverted Thinking Perceiver.  That means they ponder on what their observations from their First Step can show them about the details of a situation in order to understand and apply the inherent benefits of specific situations and to ask questions that help them discover useful possibilities.

If a person’s Second Cognition Step is Observation & Motivations via Se, then they’re an ISP, an Introverted Sensing Perceiver.  That means they watch to see what their situational conclusions from their First Step can show them about individuals in order to compile possibilities and to understand motives based on their experiences of what they’ve seen people do.

 

If a person’s Second Cognition Step is Observation & Motivations via Ne, then they’re an INP, an Introverted iNtuitive Perceiver.  That means they watch to see what their situational conclusions from their First Step can show them about individuals in order to compile possibilities and to understand motives based on concepts of what people can do and how people work conceptually.

 

If a person’s Second Cognition Step is Action & Consequences via Fe, they’re an IFJ, an Introverted Feeling Judger.  That means they watch to see what the universal trends from their First Step can show them about the cause-and-effect of people’s choices in order to understand and apply the inherent significance of decisions and to chart the most meaningful course of action ahead of them.

 

If a person’s Second Cognition Step is Action & Consequences via Te, they’re an ITJ, an Introverted Thinking Judger.  That means they watch to see what the universal trends from their First Step can show them about the cause-and-effect of people’s choices in order to understand and apply the inherent benefit of decisions and to chart the most useful course of action ahead of them.

 

If a person’s Second Cognition Step is Principles & Trends via Si, they’re an ESJ, an Extraverted Sensing Judger.  That means they ponder on what the cause-and-effect from their First Step can show them about how the world has worked in experience, in order to compile core principles of how things always work, and predict trends of how things will continue to work.

 

If a person’s Second Cognition Step is Principles & Trends via Ni, they’re an ENJ, an Extraverted iNtuitive Judger.  That means they ponder on what the cause-and-effect from their First Step can show them about how the world works in concept, in order to compile core principles of how things always work, and predict trends of how things could work.

 

See, and just from that we see how a person’s first two cognition steps determines their cognitive type!!  We get four letters for each type based on just those two steps!

Now, you *could* potentially figure out everyone’s last two steps by yourself from the cognition order we talked about in Part 3 and our Function-Combinations from Part 4, but I’m not going to make you do that, and I want to point things out as we finish these up.

Alright, so we know that everyone uses all Four Types of Information and all four functions, so by process of elimination, in the second half of the cognition process, everyone uses the two Tois and functions they haven’t yet, according to the Function-Combinations: Perceivers Judge, Judgers Perceive.

For Step Three, everyone switches whether they’re looking inside or outside again (I/E) but the Compilation/Application relationship is interesting between Steps Two and Three.

Remember how I pointed out in the last post that Judgers’ cognition order is a Universal or Specific sandwich, with Perceivers getting like a weird mayo on the outside thing?  Well, what everyone does have, cognitively speaking, is a Compilation or Application sandwich… by which I mean that Universal types use Compilation Functions on either end of their cognition process, with Application Functions in the middle, and Specific types use Application Functions on either end, with Compilation Functions in the middle.

Universal – C -> A -> A -> C
Specific  – A -> C -> C -> A

(ACA were my maiden initials.  Calise is my middle name.  I miss the palindrome :’( lol)

This is because the translation between the Judging and Perceiving halves of the cognition process is made possible by staying either zoomed-out or zoomed-in, so either Compiling or Applying, even when we go to repeat the cognition process over again.

So as everyone switches to Judging or Perceiving on Step Three, they continue either Compiling or Applying, but with a function they haven’t used yet, and switching whether they’re using that function inside or outside.

And that makes sense, because Judging and Perceiving both have one Compilation Function and one Application Function, and one Extraverted function and one Introverted function, right?  And we don’t repeat Function-Combinations.

So if Compilation and Application are making a sandwich (eg. ACCA), and Extraversion and Introversion are alternating (eg. eiei…o lol), then they never line up the same way twice.  And that’s exactly what we’re looking for everyone to get to use all four Function-Combos!  (And interestingly, those examples together, ACCA and eiei, would *always* be an EJ cognition process, because it’s starting with Application and Extraversion. :))

Also remember, Third Step is where our Perceivers start doing their toolbox thing, of Compiling Action and Applying Principles.  {And it’s neat to observe that Perceivers always Extravert Universal Tois, and Introvert Specific ones.  Makes sense that Perceivers would gather their understanding of how the world works on a Universal scale from perceiving the outside themselves, right?  Whereas Judgers always match up Compilation with Universal.}

The transition between the Second and Third Steps is really cool too, because it’s unique to each cognition order, in a way that fits their cognition perfectly:

EPs are the only ones that find world Trends directly from situational Data.

IPs are the only ones that compile what Actions are possible directly from Observing individuals.

IJs are the only ones that gather situational Data directly from Consequences.

And EJs are the only ones that gather their Observations of individuals’ motivations directly from seeing how the world works in Principle.

Step Three

If a person’s Third Cognition Step is Principles & Trends via Te, they’re an EFP, an Extraverted Feeling Perceiver.  That means they watch to see what their situational conclusions from their Second Step can show them about the benefit of the world and what’s occurring in it, in order to understand their personal principles about what is the most use to them and to watch for useful trends.

 

If a person’s Third Cognition Step is Principles & Trends via Fe, they’re an ETP, an Extraverted Thinking Perceiver.  That means they watch to see what their situational conclusions from their Second Step can show them about the significance of the world and what’s occurring in it, in order to understand their personal principles about what means the most to them and to watch for meaningful trends.

 

If a person’s Third Cognition Step is Action & Consequences via Ni, they’re an ISP, an Introverted Sensing Perceiver.  That means they ponder on what their observations from their Second Step can show them about the cause-and-effect of people’s choices in order to understand and compile how decisions and consequences work in core concept and to discover what new actions are possible.

 

If a person’s Third Cognition Step is Action & Consequences via Si, they’re an INP, an Introverted iNtuitive Perceiver.  That means they ponder on what their observations from their Second Step can show them about the cause-and-effect of people’s choices in order to understand and compile how decisions and consequences work based on their experience and to consider what actions have worked the best in the past.

 

If a person’s Third Cognition Step is Data & Details via Ti, then they’re an IFJ, an Introverted Feeling Judger.  That means they ponder on what the cause-and-effect from their Second Step can show them about the details of a situation in order to understand and apply the inherent benefits of specific situations and to ask questions that help them discover useful possibilities.

 

If a person’s Third Cognition Step is Data & Details via Fi, then they’re an ITJ, an Introverted Thinking Judger.  That means they ponder on what the cause-and-effect from their Second Step can show them about the details of a situation in order to understand and apply the inherent significance of specific situations and to ask questions that help them discover meaningful possibilities.

 

If a person’s Third Cognition step is Observation & Motivations via Ne, then they’re an ESJ, an Extraverted Sensing Judger.  That means they watch to see what the universal trends from their Second Step can show them about individuals in order to compile possibilities and to understand motives based on concepts of what people can do and how people work conceptually.

 

If a person’s Third Cognition step is Observation & Motivations via Se, then they’re an ENJ, an Extraverted iNtuitive Judger.  That means they watch to see what the universal trends from their Second Step can show them about individuals in order to compile possibilities and to understand motives based on their experiences of what they’ve seen people do.

 

There’s not much more to say before Step Four; it’s the last one left, both Toi and Function-Combination.  It’s the end of our C/A sandwich and always opposite E/I of our First Step.  It’s always going to be where our minds spend the least time too, and therefore the biggest struggle for us, but we’ll talk more about that later.

Step Four

If a person’s Fourth Cognition Step is Action & Consequences via Ni, they’re an ESP, an Extraverted Sensing Perceiver.  That means they watch to see what the universal trends from their Third Step can show them about the cause-and-effect of people’s choices in order to understand and compile how decisions and consequences work in core concept and to discover what new actions are possible.

 

If a person’s Fourth Cognition Step is Action & Consequences via Si, they’re an ENP, an Extraverted iNtuitive Perceiver.  That means they watch to see what the universal trends from their Third Step can show them about the cause-and-effect of people’s choices in order to understand and compile how decisions and consequences work based on their experience and to consider what actions have worked the best in the past.

 

If a person’s Fourth Cognition Step is Principles & Trends via Te, they’re an IFP, an Introverted Feeling Perceiver.  That means they watch to see what the cause-and-effect from their Third Step can show them about the benefit of the world and what’s occurring in it, in order to understand their personal principles about what is the most use to them and to watch for useful trends.

 

If a person’s Fourth Cognition Step is Principles & Trends via Fe, they’re an ITP, an Introverted Thinking Perceiver.  That means they watch to see what the cause-and-effect from their Third Step can show them about the significance of the world and what’s occurring in it, in order to understand their personal principles about what means the most to them and to watch for meaningful trends.

 

If a person’s Fourth Cognition Step is Observation & Motivations via Ne, then they’re an ISJ, an Introverted Sensing Judger.  That means they watch to see what their situational conclusions from their Third Step can show them about individuals in order to compile possibilities and to understand motives based on concepts of what people can do and how people work conceptually.

 

If a person’s Fourth Cognition Step is Observation & Motivations via Se, then they’re an INJ, an Introverted iNtuitive Judger.  That means they watch to see what their situational conclusions from their Third Step can show them about individuals in order to compile possibilities and to understand motives based on their experiences of what they’ve seen people do.

 

If a person’s Fourth Cognition Step is Data & Details via Ti, then they’re an EFJ, an Extraverted Feeling Judger.  That means they ponder on what their observations from their Second Step can show them about the details of a situation in order to understand and apply the inherent benefits of specific situations and to ask questions that help them discover useful possibilities.

 

If a person’s Fourth Cognition Step is Data & Details via Fi, then they’re an ETJ, an Extraverted Thinking Judger.  That means they ponder on what their observations from their Second Step can show them about the details of a situation in order to understand and apply the inherent significance of specific situations and to ask questions that help them discover meaningful possibilities.

 

And that, my friends, is all the cognition steps for all sixteen cognition orders!!  Let’s look at the sixteen cognition processes of our resulting four-variable types!

ESFP – Observation via Se -> Data via Fi -> Principles via Te -> Action via Ni

ESTP – Observation via Se -> Data via Ti -> Principles via Fe -> Action via Ni

ENFP – Observation via Ne -> Data via Fi -> Principles via Te -> Action via Si

ENTP – Observation via Ne -> Data via Ti -> Principles via Fe -> Action via Si
(This one is my cognition order ^ :D)

 

 

ISFP – Data via Fi -> Observation via Se -> Action via Ni -> Principles via Te

ISTP – Data via Ti -> Observation via Se -> Action via Ni -> Principles via Fe

INFP – Data via Fi -> Observation via Ne -> Action via Si -> Principles via Te

INTP – Data via Ti -> Observation via Ne -> Action via Si -> Principles via Fe

 

 

ISFJ – Principles via Si -> Action via Fe -> Data via Ti -> Observation via Ne

ISTJ – Principles via Si -> Action via Te -> Data via Fi -> Observation via Ne

INFJ – Principles via Ni -> Action via Fe -> Data via Ti -> Observation via Se

INTJ – Principles via Ni -> Action via Te -> Data via Fi -> Observation via Se

 

 

ESFJ – Action via Fe -> Principles via Si -> Observation via Ne -> Data via Ti

ESTJ – Action via Te -> Principles via Si -> Observation via Ne -> Data via Fi

ENFJ – Action via Fe -> Principles via Ni -> Observation via Se -> Data via Ti

ENTJ – Action via Te -> Principles via Ni -> Observation via Se -> Data via Fi

Here’s a link to all four of those in one picture, on my Pinterest.  Feel free to save/share it for reference.

Great Scott, we made it!!  *You* made it!  And now you know what all those little picture symbols and Ne, Ti, Si, etc. really mean… here on aLBoP anyway.  I take no responsibility for what they mean anywhere else.

While the second half of the cognition process is not as high a priority for our minds as the first half, it’s still an essential part of how our minds work.   Remember, we all use all Four Types of Information and we all use all four functions.  While a Thinker doesn’t prioritize meaning as early as a Feeler in their cognition process, the way Ts use meaning is integral to the way they cognate.  Same deal with Feelers and use, Sensors with concepts and iNtuitives with experiences.  While not our prime objectives, our later steps are precious parts of who we are and how we think, ones that contribute back to our central desires.

In the same way that Perceivers use Judging in an essential, toolbox way that helps them use possibilities and situations better, Judgers’ use of Perceiving is essential to their understanding of the world and consequences with complexity and balance.

Now, that being said, our later steps, and especially our last steps, are always our weakest, because our minds just don’t spend as much time there.  As finite beings, we’re limited and we just don’t have enough mental energy to spend equally on everything, and our cognition process is all about prioritizing, in a good way.

We also tend to be insecure when it comes to our later steps, especially the last one.  But this ends up being a vicious cycle when our insecurity impels us to focus too heavily on those later steps.  In fact, when we’re insecure or scared in general, we tend to hang out at our Last Step.  When we do this, we ignore crucial things that our First Cognition Step is telling us and make terrible errors in judgment, choices and overall understanding.

Our First Cognition Step is first because deep down we love it the most, and because we spend the most time there, that’s what we’re naturally best at.  It gives us nuanced information that we just can’t get from our later steps.  And when we fixate on our later steps, we end up getting less able in our First Step, which is just a mess.

The answer is to return to the North Star stability of your First Step, and focus on discovering what it’s really telling you.  Strengthening your cognitive strengths, it seems, naturally helps your cognitive weaknesses grow stronger too.  Works Every. Single. Time.

But you’ve been told that what your mind prioritizes just isn’t good enough, that it’s not smart enough, important enough, cool enough or responsible enough.  “Why can’t you just be more like *not* you?” our culture demands of us.

That’s one thing that all the types have in common: they’re all pressured to be someone else.  We’re all pressured to feel guilty for specializing in the things we love the most.  We all get told that the way we think is broken and wrong.

But cognition isn’t supposed to limit what you’re *allowed* to do or be.   When done correctly, understanding your cognition should be *permission* to do and be the fullest version of you; permission to love the things you love the most.   Permission to see that the way you think is good and not broken.  And help to see that you, *as you,* can become the hero you’ve always wanted to be.

In Part 6, we’ll talk about the who and the why of cognition, what each cognition type specializes in better than any other type.

But, guuuuys!!  You made it through the entire cognition process!!!  /Party for you!  While understanding the physics of thought has literally *endless* applications, now you know the foundations that all the applications build upon.  We still have plenty of Super Simple to go, but now it’s just the cool results of these immensely simple patterns.  These sixteen options cover all the possibilities, and we need that diversity of people and specializations.

Now that the entire cognition process itself has been given the Super Simple treatment, I may not rush Part 6 nearly as much as I rushed Parts 3, 4 and 5.  After all, there’s already a pretty good, relatively straightforward post called Type Specializations: What Makes *My* Type Special, and while I’ll love to put it through the Super-Simple-O-Matic (-_- believe me, there is nothing automated about writing these, ROFL!) it’s not nearly as urgent.

Oh, and if you want to read my first description of the cognition process, written more confusingly but in somewhat more detail, and stick figures ;), check out The Cognition Process in Stick Figures.  You, being a pro at the cognition process now, should totally be able to handle it, and I *am* still pretty proud of the cute stick figures, considering that post was written almost three years ago now.  (Although, please forgive words like “linear” for Sensing, etc.  aLBoP was super baby at that point and we were still defining our terms and learning how much we needed to differentiate ourselves from other typing systems.  Stuff like that makes me super cringey when I look back at my early posts, but the SSS is a chance for me to remedy all that!  It’s super incredible what you can learn to do better in just a few years!!)

On the aLBoP Guided Tour?  For now, until there’s more Super Simple, What Do All These Letters Mean Anyway? is up next!

The post Cognition – The Super Simple Series! | Part 5: Assembling the Cognition Process appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.

Oh and of course, if you haven’t read Parts 1, 2 and 3 yet, then I love you but you really shouldn’t be here yet.  Go read those first and then come back.  Don’t worry, I’m patient.

Alrighty, I’m really excited for this part too because there’s a lot about why Functions function the way that they do that I really haven’t gotten the opportunity to explain to the whole class, and they are really pretty frickn’ awesome!
 
A little bit of review, since the last post was long: (heehee, my fingers want to capitalize A Little Bit… I wonder why ;D)

Last time our intrepid heroes were reading Cognition – The Super Simple Series…

Our minds prioritize information according to what’s the most important to us, the information we love the most.  Likewise, our minds process that information with the functions that best fit for our underlying objectives for that Type of Information.

There are Four Types of Information and four functions.  Cognition Steps are each made up of one Type of Information and one function, and each cognitive type is a unique combination and order of four of those steps.

Remember we discussed that the Four Types of Information are what we think about, the functions are how we take in and use that information, Judging and Perceiving are when we prioritize each type of information, and Introversion and Extraversion are where we get information.

Now we’re going to play cognition step matchmaker with the 4Toi (Four Types of Information) and the four functions.  But the Four Types of Information are picky when it comes to being paired off, they won’t hook up with just any function or get information from just anywhere.  So let’s meet our lucky bachelors… or bachelorettes?  Eh, whatever, they’re inanimate and we all do all four. 

Here we have another double-dichotomy!  This double-dichotomy shows the four Function-Combination options; Introverted vs. Extraverted combined with Application Functions vs. Compilation Functions.  These are the four possible Function-Combination options and we all use each one once in our cognition process.

{And one thing you’ll find in common with most aLBoP’s double-dichotomies, this double-dichotomy correlates with the Four Types of Information, while not actually *being* the Four Types of Information.  This is because the 4Toi is made up of such basic, fundamental variables–being vs. doing (Information vs. Action) and zoomed-out vs. zoomed-in (Universal vs. Specific)–that you find the 4Toi correlating with patterns all throughout nature, as well as fractally throughout human intelligence… but that’s a topic for another day.}

Okay let’s take each of these options in turn and talk about what they really are and why each only gets matched up with certain Types of Information during the cognition process.

Remember, Compilation Functions compile massive quantities of information into universally applicable patterns that *always* apply, while Application Functions apply information to specific circumstances by deciding which information and choices best match with that function’s aim and purpose.

The two Compilation Functions are Sensing (experiences) and iNtuition (concepts).

The two Application Functions are Feeling (meaning) and Thinking (use).

And Extraversion turns outward for information while Introversion turns inward.

We like to use the analogy of a sonar for when a function is Extraverted; Extraversion uses sonar “pings” by poking people and the world to get a read on the things outside of it.

And when a function is Introverted, it’s like a HUD (heads-up display), constantly checking and aligning the information inside the mind.

When a Compilation Function is Extraverted, it “pings” the outside world to finds patterns by watching reactions to choices.   Those reactions create a database of possibilities, showing what an individual can do and be.  Also, people’s reactions demonstrate their universal, zoomed-out character; over time, Extraverted Compilation creates a database of an individual’s reactions to see the kind of person they are and if they can be relied on as a source of information and trusted.  It’s like a sonar to x-ray the shape of someone’s heart (cue the Backstreet Boys’ song in my head and suddenly I’m 14 again).

Since Extraverted Compilation is always about watching for patterns in people’s choices, it is always paired with Universal Action, aka Observation & Motivations.

So Extraverted Compilation… should we shorten it to EC?  (Incidentally, Ecee was my nickname growing up; oddly appropriate considering this is my mind’s favorite Function-Combination.)  But then again EC stands for other things.  And that would mean shortening Extraverted Application to EA… so let’s not. lol

So Extraverted Compilation can come either by way of Sensing, in the form of learning from hands-on experience of seeing how individuals and situations *have* reacted in the past, or it can come by way of iNtuition, in the form of concepts of how individuals and situations *could* react.  Both come in the form of large databases, but Extraverted Sensing (Se) finds patterns in what individuals have already done and Extraverted iNtuition (Ne) finds patterns in what individuals could potentially do.

So whenever you see Extraverted Sensing (Se) or Extraverted iNtuition (Ne), they are always Observation & Motivations, and therefore always Perceiving.  That’s why the little shorthand is useful, so don’t be scared of it.  

When an Application Function is Introverted, it uses the information already compiled inside the mind, and filters it into bullet points of information, ready to apply to the specific situation.  It turns inside, zooms in on the information it already has on its HUD, and examines, “What do I already know, and what information am I missing?”  In other words, it determines what Data and Details it has at its disposal and makes situational conclusions based on those bullet points of data.  It asks questions and looks for specific informational flaws.

So, Data *is* the Specific Information inside your head, so is it any surprise that Introverted Application functions always serve as our Data & Details step?

Now the main reason I originally started using Data & Details instead of just saying Data, was because the word “Data” conveys more of the use, Thinking version of Data, but not as much the Feeling, meaning side of it.  Half the types use their Data to find the efficient use of specific situational information, but the other half uses their Data to understand the inherent meaning of situations and Details, holding close the intrinsic significance of moments.  Both use Specific Information to determine conclusions and ask questions, but Introverted Feeling (Fi) focuses on the meaning of Specific Information, while Introverted Thinking (Ti) focuses on its use.

So whenever you see Introverted Feeling (Fi) or Introverted Thinking (Ti), they are always Data & Details, and therefore always Perceiving.

Caveat: I should really say, whenever you see Fi, Ti, etc. on aLBoP, because nine times out of ten if you see function shorthands elsewhere on the internet and in books, they’ll have no real definitions beyond things like, “Well, it kind of makes you emotional and stuff…”  Which, besides not being especially useful in application, are usually ridiculously simplified and restricting.  All I’m gonna say atm.

Extraverted Compilation Functions = Observation & Motivations
Introverted Application Functions = Data & Details

Will you look at that?!  We have cognition patterns forming again! Now we have matching Function-Combinations for the entire Perceiving half of the cognition process!  And again like with our double-dichotomy in the last post, each half of the cognition process gets one of each variable; one Extraverted function, one Introverted, one Compilation Function, one Application Function.  And we can tell that that’s a pattern that’s going to continue into the Judging half, because the options left follow that same pattern.

But, remember from Part 3, the Judging half of the cognition process was where things went a little crazy, right?  Because Judgers think of Action like a map and Perceivers think of Action like a toolbox, ‘member?  Well this is where we’re going to see that dynamic play out in the functions, where the rubber hits the road.

When a Compilation Function is Introverted, the mind becomes a fantastic playground of information pattern-finding.  The great scenario generator, Introverted Compilation is always the most zoomed-out step, because inside the mind there are no borders to the information it can compile and find patterns in.  Introverted Compilation uses its HUD to sort through huge databases of compiled information in order to find the universal rules of what makes things work.

Now, here’s where Judgers and Perceivers differ.

Judgers use this vast internal playground to find patterns in how the world as a whole works, what Principles are universally true and how to predict world Trends, so their Actions will interact with said world correctly.

And Perceivers use the Compilation mind-playground to visualize scenarios of Action, find patterns and parallels in what makes a category of Action work and get desired Consequences when different world situations arise.

So Introverted Compilation is always a Judging step, which is good to remember, but for Judgers it’s always Principles & Trends, and for Perceivers it’s always Action & Consequences.

Like with all the variables, there are two ways to compile in your head.  Introverted Sensing (Si) finds patterns in past experiences to see what Principles (for Js) or Action (for Ps) have worked in the past, and to find the threads behind what consistently works.  Introverted iNtuition (Ni) finds patterns in the overall mental concepts of information to see how information always fits together as Principles (for Js) or Action (for Ps), which can be used in new ways and to find the core connections behind what always works.

Alright, so Introverted Sensing (Si) and Introverted iNtuition (Ni) are always the zoomed-out, compiling side of Judging, but for Judgers they’ll always be Principles & Trends, and for Perceivers they’ll always be Action & Consequences.

When an Application Function is Extraverted, it looks at the world to find current needs outside itself and see what’s required to make the outside circumstances meet the function’s objectives.  While Introverted Application looks for what information is missing inside the mind, Extraverted Application sonar “pings” the external road ahead to see what’s missing in order to achieve the outside objectives it desires.

Perhaps the Function-Combination that typifies the word “Judging” the most, Extraverted Application is all about weighing and applying judgment calls about what will be best, whether its job is to prioritize use or meaning, action or worldview.

And like Introverted Compilation, Extraverted Application is always a Judging step, whose use differs between Judgers and Perceivers.

Judgers use Extraverted Application to look outside themselves and decide both their goals and determine what Actions and choices will lead to the Consequences they desire.  They also interpret the effects of previous Actions to understand Consequences more accurately.  They use Extraverted Action to plot their map’s course and review where the paths they’ve already taken have led them.

Perceivers use Extraverted Application to look outside themselves and watch how the Trends of the world are going, checking for what it might need to match their objectives for it.  Their minds work in conjunction with their zoomed-out Action to see what tools the world needs from their toolbox.

So Extraverted Application is always a Judging step, but for Judgers it’s always Action & Consequences, and for Perceivers it’s always Principles & Trends.

Half of the cognition processes use Extraverted Feeling (Fe) as their Extraverted Application Function.

When Js use Extraverted Feeling (Fe), they look outside themselves to see what Actions would bring Consequences that are the most intrinsically significant, and decide which choices will lead to the most meaningful outcome.

When Ps use Extraverted Feeling (Fe), they look at the world outside themselves to discover what causes meaningful Trends, to determine Principles of what matters to them the most, and to find what the world needs to make it more meaningful.

The other half of the cognition processes use Extraverted Thinking (Te) as their Extraverted Application Function.

When Judgers use Extraverted Thinking (Te), they look outside themselves to see what Actions and choices would most efficiently produce the useful Consequences they need to achieve the most beneficial outcome.

When Perceivers use Extraverted Thinking (Te), they look at the world outside themselves to discover what causes useful Trends, to determine Principles of what tends to be the most effective, and to find what the world needs to make it more beneficial.

Okey doke, so Extraverted Feeling (Fe) and Extraverted Thinking (Te) are always the zoomed-in, applying side of Judging, but for Judgers they’ll always be Action & Consequences, and for Perceivers they’ll always be Principles & Trends.

And now we have the Judging half of the cognition process!  Tada!

Introverted Compilation Functions = Principles & Trends (for Js) OR Action & Consequences (for Ps)

Extraverted Application Functions = Action & Consequences (for Js) OR Principles & Trends (for Ps)

That is *all* the possible Function-Combinations!!  This means there’s three possible uses for each function: one Perceiving option, one Judging option for Js, and one Judging option for Ps.

When a Compilation Function (Sensing or iNtuition) is Extraverted (Se or Ne), it is always Observation— a pattern-finding database of individuals and their motives.

When a Compilation Function (Sensing or iNtuition) is Introverted (Si or Ni), it is either Principles (Js) or Action (Ps)–an internal playground of information pattern-finding.

When an Application Function (Feeling or Thinking) is Introverted (Fi or Ti), it is always Data–bullet points of information inside your head.

When an Application Function (Feeling or Thinking) is Extraverted (Fe or Te), it is either Action (Js) or Principles (Ps)–applying judgment calls to your external environment.

So the longer explanations were to help you understand *why* certain Types of Information only hook-up with certain Function-Combos, but really it’s as simple as these four statements above.  My hope will be that understanding why will help it be *easier* to understand, but if you forget, just reference these four statements.

And these four Function-Combinations are the four possible ways to start the cognition process!

So why is all this so important for understanding yourself, others, and the consistency of the human mind?  The reason I love Function-Combinations so much is because of the incredibly equal footing on which they place every cognition process.  So much junk-personality-typing tries to define the spectrum of humanity by separating them by narrow traits to the exclusion of all other traits, which limits and incapacitates people.

People tend to get so focused on if a person “is” F/T, S/N, E/I or J/P, or even Fe/Fi, Ni/Ne, etc.,–and sure, the letters are a good shorthand for what we prioritize first, and what is the most important to us–but so often, that focus makes us forget that each of the four functions is an integral part of *all* cognition processes.

I love how Function-Combinations just serve to demonstrate that life shouldn’t be a battle of opposing functions and viewpoints.  This isn’t some stupid war of S vs N or F vs T, and certainly not Fe vs Fi *eyeroll*.  Everyone needs to learn from experience (Sensing), concepts (iNtuition), meaning (Feeling) and use (Thinking), to function healthily.  (Functions to function! heehee)  Function-Combinations help to highlight that there are three very different ways to use experience, three ways to use concepts, etc.  And each of those beautiful variations leads to such a magnificent array of perspective and objective!

Okay, but here’s the thing: originally I’d planned to lay out everything about cognition steps, cognition order, Function-Combinations and putting it all back together, all in *one* post!  All of that was going to be rolled up into Part 3!  But then as I wrote it, I realized that, while I want to make this simple enough for anyone to understand, I really wanted to teach the *why* too!  So then keeping it super simple meant breaking it up into digestible pieces… so Part 3 became Parts 3 and 4, with Part 4 being Function-Combinations and putting the whole cognition process together!  But I realized when I was 85% of the way done with Part 4, that I was totally rushing putting all the pieces back together, which is kind of the point!  So Part 4 became Parts 4 and 5. -_-

My point is, hold that thought!  In Part 5 we’re going to use everything we’ve learned so far to assemble cognition steps, and use those to make sixteen completely unique cognition processes!!!  So stay tuned! <3

On the aLBoP Guided Tour?  Cognition – The Super Simple Series! | Part 5: Assembling the Cognition Process is up next!

The post Cognition – The Super Simple Series! | Part 4: Function-Combinations appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.

I’m very excited for this post as there is sooo much confusion and stereotyping about what functions really are.  In this post we’re looking at just how simple and straightforward cognitive functions are, and yet how they’re complex in application and, when understood correctly, should help us understand our complexity as humans more, not limit us into boxes.  But I’m getting ahead of myself, as usual.

If we define “Cognition,” as we did in Part 1, as the action of your mind acquiring and processing information, “Functions” are the tools our minds use to acquire and process that information. 

Functions are the means by which we take in each Type of Information.  Functions also help our minds determine our mind’s objective or end goal for that information.  They help us find patterns in and narrow down important information, and evaluate and apply information to the world around us.

So Part 1 was about what information we gather and process, and Part 2 is about how we gather and process that information.  Got it?

There are four functions; two Compilation Functions and two Application Functions.  Everyone uses all four; we just use them in different orders and apply them to different types of information.

Compilation Functions compile massive quantities of information into universally applicable patterns that *always* apply.  They find similarities and trends in otherwise overwhelming quantities of information in order to find the common threads that run through all of it.

The Compilation Functions function like enormous databases of information collected over the course of your life that serve as reference compendiums for life.

Application Functions apply information to specific circumstances by deciding which information and choices best match with that function’s aim and purpose.  They evaluate and weigh the importance of information as well as decide how to use it in practice.

The Application Functions function like filters for information that are constantly working to apply and decide how information will be used in any given scenario.

The Compilation Functions

Sensing and iNtuition are the two Compilation Functions.

“Sensing” gathers and compiles information from our own experiences, things we’ve personally seen, heard, touched, felt, smelled, danced, etc.  (I’m pretty sure dancing is the sixth sense.)  It finds patterns in the experiences we’ve had so that it can understand the way things and people currently work, or have worked in the past.  It helps us treasure and appreciate things that already exist and helps us protect good things from being lost.

Everyone uses the Sensing function at some point during their cognition process, but a person is considered a Sensor (S) if they use Sensing to process information in one of their first two cognition steps.

“iNtuition” gathers and compiles information in the form of concepts.  A concept is the overall idea or mental image of information.  iNtuition compiles these overall ideas and finds patterns and connections between them, in order to find new ways to use them. It helps us see how things are connected to one another and see what’s missing.

Everyone uses the iNtuition function at some point during their cognition process, but a person is considered an iNtuitive (N) if they use iNtuition to process information in one of their first two cognition steps.

I find that Sensing and iNtuition tend to cause people the most confusion, but despite what some might tell you, don’t get hung up over claims of one function being smarter, more practical, more athletic, or more philosophical than any of the others.  Sensing focuses on experiences and iNtuition focuses on concepts, no matter who is using it or what Type of Information it’s compiling.

The Application Functions

Feeling and Thinking are the two Application Functions.

“Feeling” filters and applies information in order to understand its meaning－its intrinsic significance in the grand scheme of things－and in order to reach the most meaningful result from a given circumstance.

Feelings inform us of what truly matters to us, and what is important in our lives.

While everyone uses the Feeling function at some point during their cognition process, a person is considered a Feeler (F) if they use Feeling to process information in one of their first two cognition steps.

“Thinking” filters and applies information in order to understand its use－its value in helping the user to employ the information and resources at their fingertips－and in order to reach an outcome of efficient utility.

Thoughts inform us of what’s most beneficial or detrimental for whatever goal we have at the time.

While everyone uses the Thinking function at some point during their cognition process, a person is considered a Thinker (T) if they use Thinking to process information in one of their first two cognition steps.

And no, despite what the internet may tell you, in all its wisdom, Feelers are not any more emotional or kind and Thinkers are not any more logical or hard.  That is bull-turds.  The definition that holds up repeatably and consistently in practice is when a person prioritizes use or meaning in their cognition process.

I want to really emphasize again that these are the definitions of the functions, and how they work for each of us.  We just use them in different orders and matched up with different Types of Information, based on what our minds desire and love the most.  It might seem like a redundant point to hit, but it’s incredible how much stereotyping and type-bigotry sneaks in, when that one little point gets ignored.  Not to mention that when definitions get forgotten, everything just gets way more complicated than it really is.

So don’t feel boxed in by systems or sources that use terms like “dom” or “dominant functions.”  As we’ll discuss in the next few posts, the cognition process has a beautiful physics to it, full of elegant cause-and-effect and reasons behind each motion.  In contrast, using jargon that you’ll see splattered across the Internet like “Fi dom” or “Ne dom,” implies that a person should be boiled down to just one function, and ends up entirely too subjective to have any sort of repeatability or science.  While some people might prefer to narrowly label both others and themselves by a single box or trait, human beings are so much more gorgeously complex than that.

Now, what does it really mean to “prioritize” a Type of Information or a function and what’s the deal with this “cognition process” we keep talking about?  In the next post we’ll discuss one of my very favorite parts of cognition: Cognition Steps and the Anatomy of the Cognition Process!

On the aLBoP Guided Tour?  Cognition – The Super Simple Series | Part 3: Cognition Steps and the Anatomy of the Cognition Process  is up next!

The post Cognition – The Super Simple Series! | Part 2: The Four Functions appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.

Hey!  This is Justin!  Since I’m gonna be doing a lot of Phase 2, it’s probably good for me to say hi.  It’s been awesome getting to talk to you guys over chats and emails, and I’m excited to finally get to do some character spotlights!

For this first one, we’re going to be focusing especially on how to type people.  A lot of you have asked for help with typing people yourselves, so let’s walk through the process!

We’ve also convinced a couple of stick people, Gwen and Phil, to sacrifice their dignity and show us how *not* to type.  They’re going to do their best to type correctly, using oversimplified, stereotypical methods and definitions, and we’ll see how they do.

For this tutorial, we wanted to type a cool, engaging character who’s also kinda obscure.  That way, we shouldn’t have to worry much about preconceptions of the character’s type.  We wouldn’t want to start out with Darth Vader, say.  (We’ve seen Lord Vader typed as pretty much every single type :P)

That’s exactly the sort of subjectivity that we’re excited to get past here!  Regardless of whether we’re typing someone’s behavior or their cognition, if it all ends up coming down to subjective arguments over what type they are, then there’s something wrong with our methodology.  A reliable, repeatable, useful science needs to be objective, no matter who’s looking at it.

This kind of independent objectivity isn’t something a lot of people would associate with personality typing.  All too often, personality typing gets misused as a vague, horoscope-ish way of boiling people down to a simplistic little list of traits that could really be true of almost anyone.  Gwen and Phil are gonna demonstrate how this vagueness doesn’t work.  Aren’t you, guys?

We, on the other hand, are all going to show these two the consistent roots of cognitive typing.  We’re going to walk through how the cognitive definitions of the letters leave no wiggle room for subjective fudging; once we know how the letters work at their root, then every typing becomes clear.

So who’s our lucky, obscure victim for this demonstration?  Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, I give you…

…a peacock.

But not just any peacock.  This is the nefarious Lord Shen, the brilliant and, in my estimation, very charming villain of Kung Fu Panda 2.  Yes, there really is a movie called Kung Fu Panda, if you didn’t know.  Two of them, actually, with a third on the way.  And they’re really fantastic, with excellent themes told in a skillful way, and very good plot structure, and also very pretty. 

So we’re gonna type our peacock, step by step.  What’s he gonna be?

Gwen and Phil: INTJ!!

Wait, huh?

Gwen: Villain, therefore INTJ.

Phil: Done.  Next?

Okay…  Well, he might be, we’ll have to go through it and see.  Trying to type someone based on broad generalizations about what any type is like is dangerous, and probably kinda hurtful to people of that type.  I’m sure real INTJs never get tired of being called villains and soulless monsters, after all.

Any type can be villainous, heartless, devious, selfish, etc.  So if we start saying that anyone who’s villainous must be INTJ, when in reality any of the 16 types can be villains, then we’re only going to be right about one-sixteenth of the time, through sheer luck.

Likewise, if we start saying that anyone who’s thoughtful, private, creative, or heroic must be INFJ, then we’re going to be wrong fifteen-sixteenths of the time.  If we say that anyone who’s fun, bouncy, and lives in the moment must be ESFP, then we’re going to get it wrong fifteen times out of sixteen.  These sorts of generalizations are too vague, because in reality, anyone of any type can sometimes fit them.

Can INTJs be bouncy and live in the moment?  Absolutely; they’ll just do it in an INTJ way, which is usually distinctly adorable.

Okay Gwen and Phil, so we can’t just shout out four-letter combos based on generalized caricatures.  Sound good?  When we do, we often neglect any coherent definition of the letters themselves.

So first, let’s start with E and I.  Which is Lord Shen?

Gwen: I!

Phil: E!

Ooh, a disagreement!  This is why we picked these two.  Alright, let’s start with Phil.  Why do you say Shen’s an Extravert?

Phil: Did you even *see* how many henchmen he has?  The guy’s always surrounded by followers.  He loves the attention.  Can you imagine him sitting alone with a book?  Totally not his style.  He’s a diva, an attention hog, he even wants his enemies to be there to see him win.  Absolutely an Extravert.

Gwen: Wrong.

Okay Gwen, why do you say he’s an Introvert?

Gwen: None of those henchmen are his friends.  He wants to be alone.  He hates his family, he doesn’t respect anyone, and he wants all the glory for himself.  He’s obviously well-studied, which says Introvert to me.  Who invented firearms?  He did, alone.  When everyone else was watching fireworks, he was in his room, figuring things out.  Lord Shen is an Introvert.

Phil: Oh come on, what about—

Alright, let’s stop right here.  This is the problem, guys.  See the subjectivity happening here?

Gwen: No.  I’m just saying it how it is.

Phil: Yeah, right!  You’re totally ignoring, like, everything!

This is what we mean, both of you.  Picking and choosing scenes, situations, lines of dialogue, whatever you can find to support your view.  That’s subjective, because each viewer may focus on different things.  You both make interesting arguments that bring out important parts of Shen’s character.  If we invited a few more stick people to join you, I bet they’d each have even more different reasons for saying E or I.  At this rate, sixteen different stick people might type Shen as sixteen different types!

This is often how it goes all over the internet, where there are a lot more than sixteen people.  And this is a large part of the reason why some people consider personality typing to be unscientific, because guys, subjective picking-and-choosing isn’t science.  You can’t test it, you can’t verify it, and really of what use is it?  What predictions does it make about Shen, or about anyone?  What does it do besides divide people into little boxes?

Gwen, you mentioned that Shen must be an Introvert because he alone invented firearms.  Do you realize that you just accused half of humanity of being unable to invent new things on their own?

Gwen: Well, I…

You are an Introvert, or at least you identify as one, so you are used to inventing things in an Introverted way.  You’re used to doing so many things that way.  This does not mean that Extraverts cannot invent things just as well, it means only that they’ll do it a bit differently from the way you’re used to.  This is another problem with subjective personality typing: it can give us an attitude that anyone who doesn’t think the way we do, doesn’t think.  Or at least doesn’t think very well.

This sort of subjectivity usually means that there’s a problem with the definitions we’re using.  Poor definitions leave room for subjectivity, for bias and fudging.  In any discipline, useful definitions give us a clear idea of what we’re working with, so we can build upon them to reach reliable conclusions that will apply accurately in all the complexity of life.  Unreliable definitions become less helpful, because we can’t really depend on them to guide us when we need definite, clear answers.  These kinds of fuzzy definitions can be great as a stepping stone to more coherent ones, but they’re not good for depending on in practice.

So Gwen and Phil, what definitions were you using to determine whether Shen is an E or an I?

Gwen: May I remind you, you told us to use stereotypes and oversimplified definitions?

Phil: Ya bro, what gives?

Oh right, sorry guys.  Okay, what definitions did I talk you into using, while you did your best to type Shen correctly?

Gwen: Not the easiest task.

Phil: You know the drill, who doesn’t?  Extravert means fun, social, likes to be the center of attention at parties.

Gwen: And draws energy from interacting with others.

Phil: Yeah, that too.  And Introvert means drawing energy from being alone.  Likes books, sitting alone thinking, writing, dreaming…antisocial stuff.

Once again, you guys see how fast it becomes a little insulting?  Antisocial isn’t necessarily a good thing, even if someone does prefer to be alone with their own thoughts.  In the same way, even if someone likes being around others more, they may not appreciate being portrayed as a vapid party animal.

And this brings out one of the immediate flaws in these definitions: they’re a little too limiting.  What if I like being social sometimes, but not always?  What if I’m feeling really social at the moment, but a few hours ago I really wanted to have time to myself?  Perhaps we can fudge with the definitions to make room for this sort of nuance, but already that’s a bad sign.  When we have to fudge with definitions, that probably means we need to reevaluate how reliable and comprehensive our definitions are in the first place.

Strong definitions leave no room for exceptions, which usually means they end up being binary, covering opposite sides of a clear dichotomy.  For example, if I say that E means red and I means blue, then that does not cover all possibilities.  Where would a green person fit in?  Or a yellow one, or a gray one?  We could fudge and say, “Well, if you’ve done your reading, you’ll know that gray people are grouped more on the blue side, and yellow are grouped closer to red…”  Alright, but what does “closer to red” mean?  How much of the definition of red do they get?  If we’re saying that E means red, then exactly how E are yellow people?

This is an example of a shaky, clumsy definition, because it isn’t binary.  And that’s why it needs all the extra justifications and special cases about people who aren’t quite red or blue.  Red and blue are not opposites, even if they’re very different from each other.  And because they’re not opposites, they let a flood of exceptions through.  And where there are exceptions, it gets harder to make predictions, which means everything becomes less scientific and more subjective.

Alright, then suppose we define E as red, while I means not-red.  Okay, now everyone of every color will fit squarely within either E or I, with no subjective doctoring needed.  Either you’re red, or not.  Very simple.  Binary.

Yet this brings up another problem!  Are these definitions of E and I consistent with reality?  Well, that depends what we’re trying to show with our definition, but I expect that if we actually tried to define E as red and I as not-red, then most people would find that very useless in terms of psychology.  And we’d probably end up with a whole lot more Is than Es, because there are a lot more not-red things in the world than red ones.

So yes, we need to make the definitions of E and I binary, so they don’t invite subjective fiddling by letting exceptions through.  But we also need to make the definitions of E and I true to reality, so they don’t leave anyone feeling limited or oversimplified.  And that takes a whole lot of patient observation and experimentation, and means we have to allow our budding definitions to evolve to become better verbal reflections of what nature’s already been doing all along.

So after some care, we ended up with the definitions of E and I that we’ve been using here on aLBoP:  That E means cognitive Extraversion, which entails looking out at the world in order to gather information and ideas, while I means cognitive Introversion, which entails looking inward to consider information and ideas.  That’s fairly binary as it is, outward vs. inward, but an important part of the equation is that everyone does both, yet each person prioritizes one before another.  If Es do outward-then-inward, while Is do inward-then-outward, then that seems very neatly binary.
But what if someone does outward-then-outward?  Where would that fit?  Or what if someone looks outward first sometimes, but inward first at others?  This is where we have to see if our definitions pair up with reality.  In practice, it seems that not only does everyone do both, never just doing the same one twice, but also that a person’s cognitive preference never deviates!  It’s pretty amazing, but apparently it’s the way cognition works.  Everyone wants to look outward, and everyone wants to look inward, but each individual wants to do one a little more than the other, deep down.  Due to what each of us secretly desires most, our psyches will consistently prioritize Introverted pondering or Extraverted observation, one or the other, in the same way in every situation.

These definitions were not arrived at out of thin air; we simply dug down to find what was really going on behind Extraversion and Introversion.  What was the root cause that resulted in all the behavioral symptoms?  A cold may give you a cough, but the cough is just a symptom, and many things besides a cold may give you the same symptom.  Digging down to the root cause, we can find out what a cold actually is, and what cognitive Extraversion and Introversion actually are, demonstrating what causes the symptoms without being confused by them.

And because we’re defining root causes rather than symptoms, we don’t end up limiting anyone.  No one should be made to feel limited in their behaviors, choices, aptitudes, or anything about the person they want to be.  Since these definitions get down to the cognitive root, we avoid exceptions and subjectivity, we keep close to reality in actual practice, and we reflect the way people already approach the world without limiting anything that they want to do or be.

Phew!  So…yeah.  Definitions are one of the absolute most important, and most neglected, aspects of any discipline.  Shaky definitions lead to shaky science and hurtful oversimplifications, while strong definitions lead to clear understanding, accurate predictions, and no insulting stereotypes!

So guys, let’s see how our clarified definitions of E and I fare.  Does Lord Shen look outward at the world first, then consider things in his mind?  Or does he consider things in his mind first, then look outward?

Phil: Hm…

Gwen: Uh…can we watch the movie again?

Yeah!  Okay, so the first time we see him is in the intro montage.  He’s a happy young peacock living with his parents, who rule the city.  They’ve invented fireworks, which makes everyone happy.  But Shen sees destructive potential in the black powder.  We don’t get to see how this realization occurs, so here we have to admit that we lack sufficient information.  That’s very important to do, when necessary.  Maybe Shen figured this out by pondering in his own mind, Introverted, or maybe he figured it out by watching how things work, Extraverted.  We just don’t get shown, so we have to say we don’t know.

Score: I – 0, E – 0

 Then, worried about his budding nutball-ness, Shen’s parents consult a soothsayer to find out what to do.  The soothsayer warns that unless Shen changes, he’ll one day be defeated by a warrior of black and white.  And there’s a cool yin/yang symbolism evoked.  But Shen can read foreshadowing as well as we can, and he thinks, “Pandas!”  And he reacts.  Violently.

This says Extravert, at this point.  Why?  Because Shen is choosing his action based on what he’s observed outside.

Gwen: But couldn’t an Introvert do that too?

Sure, everyone of any type can do anything!  Yet they’ll each do it in different ways.  An Introverted Shen, upon overhearing the soothsayer, would consider how her words matched up with what Shen had already considered in his own mind.  Observation of the soothsayer’s words would be secondary to his own previous thoughts.  He might arrive at the same course of action, but it would be motivated by his own thoughts, not immediately by the soothsayer’s words.  An Introverted Shen would have gone away, thinking, then hatched a violent plan and gone forward.  This Shen, on the other hand, hears the words and reacts!  It’s the words of the soothsayer, an external source of information, which impel his action, not his own internal pondering.  Make sense?

Gwen: I suppose, so far at least…

Phil: This is just a montage, though.  Maybe he went and thought and we never saw it?

Yes, this is a quick montage, so that is still possible, Phil.  But be careful of adding scenes that aren’t there.  In good storytelling, we get a well-rounded view of a character by seeing the choices they make, and how they make them.  That’s what makes well-crafted fictional characters a great place to start typing!  So far, it seems the story is showing us that Shen reacts to external information, rather than internal.

Score: I – 0, E – 1

So Shen gathers his wolf cronies, and commits genocide against all the pandas.  And then here’s what’s really interesting: he comes home, expecting his parents to be proud!  This shows how messed up he is, yes, and anyone of any type can be.  Yet this also shows a distinct focus on others’ opinions.  This again suggests Extravert, seeking information from outside, in this case from other people.

An Introverted Shen, by contrast, might still intensely crave his parents’ approval, but he would not seek it as a way to validate or justify his actions.  He would not seek outside opinions or approval to show him that what he’d done was good.  Rather, when he came to his parents in triumph, he would have already determined that what he’d done was good or necessary.  Their love would be what he’d want, and if he believed that their love depended on their approval, then he might seek their approval for its own sake.  But he would not expect their approval to validate his choice of action.

 The movie’s Extraverted Shen, on the other hand, bursts in triumphantly, clearly expecting his parents’ pride to endorse his decisive, fate-defying action.  And so when he sees their horror, it crushes him.  When they banish him and all his wolf henchmen, he is being cut off from the most precious source of external information he has: his parents, and his home.  All his reactions to this show a cognitive Extraversion, looking outward to understand life.

Score: I – 0, E – 2
 

One last bit from the montage:  When Shen is banished, he vows revenge.  Okay, what kind of revenge?  Does he swear to return and destroy them all?  Or maybe take over the city?  Well he sure seems to intend that, but what he says is interesting.  That someday he’ll return, and everyone will bow at his feet.  Again, this is Extraverted.  His version of revenge is entirely external, centered around what others do and how they view him.  It isn’t motivated primarily by what he can get for himself; it’s all centered around what he can do to others, and how he can force them to view him.

Score: I – 0, E – 3
 

 Wow, this is being pretty consistent so far!  And notice that none of it is determined by *what* Shen does, but by *how* he does it.  In every instance, an Introvert could do the same actions, but they’d do it with entirely different motives and goals.

This method of considering both options, Introvert and Extravert, and then seeing which matches with the actual character, keeps us safe from subjective cherry-picking.  All too often, people watch movies, read books, or look at real people and cherry-pick only the actions or words they want in order to suggest the type they want.  But once we recognize that anyone can do or say anything, regardless of their type, that kind of subjectivity falls apart.  Then we have to look at how and why the person does or says what they do, and consider how they might do the same action differently if they cognated differently.  If you think a character or person is a certain letter, then ask, “What would they be like if they were the other letter?”  Explore both, and see what happens!

And so the movie goes on.  And over and over, Shen displays an entirely consistent focus outward, at others’ opinions, their actions, and their estimation of him.  This is not to say that Extraverts are insecure; Introverts can be just as cripplingly insecure, and either can be healthy and chill, yet as always, they’ll do it in different ways.
 

When Shen finally does return, you can tell he’s rehearsed the whole grand entrance.  He wants to make his enemies pay.  Then when he gives his private victory speech, with only the soothsayer as audience, he points out how much he’s rehearsed this moment.  Soon after, when he learns of the existence of one last panda, we see him nervously rehearsing a scripted “At last we meet!” speech.  This kind of rehearsal shows how much Shen cares about the way everyone sees him in an Extraverted way, focusing outward on their opinions even more than on his own victories.

This awareness of others’ opinions doesn’t make Extraverts weak or shallow; on the contrary, their focus on others can give them perspective that Introverts might overlook.  Their outward awareness can make it easier to know others’ needs, and easier to have a thick skin against others’ opinions, having a clearer awareness of the motives behind those opinions.  While unhealthy Extraverts like Shen may be quite insecure in their awareness of how others see them, healthy Extraverts can be all the more calm and confident for it.

Interestingly, rehearsing also lets Shen feel almost Introverted, motivated by his own predetermined script rather than feeling vulnerable to others’ words or opinions.  Yet the sheer fact that Shen has to keep rehearsing shows how much that kind of Introverted action does not come naturally to him.  He can learn to do it, just as anyone can learn to do anything, but it is harder for him.  Just like observing others and reacting accordingly is a bit harder for Introverts.

This also brings up an unfortunate tendency of less healthy Es.  Shen rehearses and rehearses, but when he finally meets Po the Panda, the meeting doesn’t go at all as he’d expected.

When Extraverts rehearse without having a correct image of their audience in mind, it’s a sign of unhealthiness, of being stuck in their own heads while flailing at the outside world.  Even healthy Es can do this, but when they do, it’s a sign that they’re slipping into quite unhealthy attitudes.  When Extraverts go off on a subject without considering their audience, when they rant on social media making others wonder who they’re trying to talk to, when it seems as if they’re shouting at a wall in long, pre-scripted tirades, then that shows they’re being closed-off, and in fact clinging to insecurities about their last cognitive step.  This inevitably leads to erroneous attitudes, ideas, and harmful decisions.  Introverts can do all this too, of course, but they’ll do it in a different way, becoming obsessed with how others see them, in fact paying too much attention to their audience!  Yet as always, the more both Es and Is learn to focus on their first step instead of their last, the more they’ll snap out of it and actually talk *to* people, instead of talking *at* them.

Back to our buddy Shen, he keeps the old soothsayer around, obsessed with what she has to say about his future, even when it remains unchanged after all his years of planning.  He needs to see her proven wrong.  He needs her to admit it.  And so she trolls him, knowing he’ll be hanging on her every word.  Shen views the soothsayer as a vital source of external information, a window into the future which Shen feels so desperately powerless to affect.  In a way, the future and its immutable consequences are the ultimate external information.  So everything Shen does is meant to beat the future, to change it, to force it to conform to his actions as a final way of validating them.  All entirely Extraverted.

I’m not sure what the score would be by this point in the film, but it’s looking like a shutout with E trouncing I.  In every interaction, every choice, Shen shows a persistent focus on external information.  He acts as if his entire success or failure depends on external opinions.  He’s not only more Extraverted than Introverted; he seems purely, entirely Extraverted!

This is actually how it’s supposed to work, in real life as well as in fiction.  The writers of this movie didn’t know to make their villain a pure Extravert; they just wanted an interesting villain with realistic, identifiable motivations.  In the same way, the clearer definitions of E and I show that everyone is always all one, or all the other.  In every situation, decision, thought, or action, Extraverts will look outside themselves for information first.  Every time.  And Introverts will start by looking inside their minds first, every single time.  Again, this isn’t a limit on what we can do; everyone can get good at everything, yet Extraverts naturally think in an Extraverted way, and Introverts think in an Introverted way.

If, instead, we found that people tended to come off as more of a mix, then that might suggest that our definitions needed some work.  The fact that it’s always consistent shows that we’ve gotten down to the roots of how we think, beneath all our changing behaviors and attitudes.  Inconsistency would suggest inaccurate definitions.

What this means, though, is that a real test of cognition should never say, “Well, you got 6 points of E and only 4 points of I, so overall you’re an E.”  That kind of mixed result shows a problem in the definitions that the test is using for its letters.  So when you run into tests that give mixed results like that—and I don’t really know of any other kind of test for these letters—then you can be pretty sure that the test is at least a little inaccurate.  Faulty definitions lead to faulty conclusions.  A thorough, cohesive definition of the letters will yield thoroughly consistent answers.  Even behavioralism can be made to meet this standard, once it derives robust, dependable definitions of behaviors.

Anyway, Shen here certainly seems to be coming out as a pure cognitive Extravert, which helps us better understand all his behaviors and attitudes.

Phil: Okay, that’s all actually really cool, but…he’s a bad guy!

Gwen: He’s right.  Aren’t bad guys usually Introverted masterminds?

Shen certainly seems to qualify as a mastermind.  Plotting, controlling, moving each chess piece for years.  But why does mastermind have to mean Introvert?  Why does someone have to look inside their own mind for information, in order to cunningly craft a devious strategy?  Here we come to limitations again.  Stereotype might tell us that villains must be Introverts because only Introverts can create a competent villainous scheme, but that’s just insulting to Extraverts.

One of the reasons we chose Shen for this first spotlight was because his four-letter type goes against all kinds of stereotypes!  And here’s one stereotype we can defy right away: he’s an Extraverted mastermind, constantly looking outside himself as he proceeds with his master plan.  This makes Shen “POP” as a villain, breaking away from the clichés we’ve grown used to.  Not that Introverted villains can’t be made to POP in their own ways, but Shen’s Extraversion is quite engaging.

Okay, so we’re good?  Lord Shen is an Extravert?

Gwen: It appears so.

Phil: Booyah!  Rack up one point for Phil, I was right!

Well your answer was right, but that doesn’t mean you understood why, Phil.  Since each of you chose one of the two letters, one of you was gonna get it right!

Phil: Yeah, but it was me!

Gwen: Sheer luck.

And lucky guesses aren’t science, since they don’t help us make predictions.  They don’t really help us understand anything.  But now that we’ve gotten down to the comprehensive definition at the core of Extraversion, you can understand the reasons behind it without having to rely on guesswork.  And that’s much nicer, yeah?

Phil: Yeah, it makes a ton more sense, actually.  It’s not what I’m used to, like, at all.  But you’re right, it makes it so I don’t have to just kinda guess and hope for the best.

Gwen: Much more concrete.  Even if you made us start out with unreliable definitions.

Yeah…  You’ve both been great sports.  And as for what you’re used to, remember that this definition is the root of all the actual symptoms of Extraversion, while losing the stereotypes that were never really symptoms of anything.  By these definitions both E and I are fundamentally equal, because everyone does both, just in opposite order.  No more can we say that one is less healthy, less thoughtful, less friendly, or less intelligent than the other.  Anyone of any type can and should be free to be whatever they choose.  Each different way of approaching life is equally valid and effective.

Phil: Phil 1, Gwen 0.

Alright, we gotta move on!  Next we’ll see whether Shen is a P or a J.

Phil: Wait!

Gwen: Aren’t S and N next?

Yeah?  Why’s that?

Phil: Because…they’re next.

Gwen: After I and E, comes S and N.

Ohhh, right.  See, here’s the thing.  That letter order is kinda arbitrary, but we’ve gotten used to it, so, yeah.  Calise and I often find it more useful to focus on first and last letters together, since they represent a type’s Scope.  If we could start over fresh (tempting, but far too confusing), we might write it as IJ-NT, instead of INTJ.  That’s actually how we sometimes say it in private, in fact.  IJ-NT gets across that the first pair is the Scope, the primary focus of the type which determines its first cognition step, while the second pair is the Objective, the secondary focus that gets applied to the Scope.

We still say INTJ because, hey, we don’t want to be confusing.  And Calise kinda likes the sense of “balance” that comes from having the Scope letters on the outside, like bookends.  She says it feels like a castle, with little towers on the outside.  But either way, when we’re walking through how cognition works we can go in any order we like, and focusing on Scope (first and last letters) followed by Objective (middle letters) tends to be far more informative.

We did have one reader once who seemed to think Calise was saying that the cognition steps go I-N-T-J, in that order.  And there’s nothing wrong with being a little confused, but when someone comes on a website to declare that it’s wrong, they’d probably be well advised to actually consider the content.  Even a brief glance at the pictures, without even bothering to read, should have shown that the order of cognition steps has nothing at all to do with the arbitrary order of the letters; that’s not even how cognition steps work.  But when people seem uncomfortable about any topic, it can be amazing how much reading comprehension turns off.

Phil: Word.

Right!  So, we’re okay hitting J and P next?  See what our boy Shen’s Scope turns out to be?

Gwen: Sounds good.

Phil: Yeah, because he’s gonna be a P.  I am on fire!

Don’t burn yourself just yet.  Let’s let Gwen go first this time.  Gwen?

Gwen: Lord Shen is a J, because…you really want me to do this?

I promised you candy!  All you have to do is use the usual, simplified definitions, and see how well you can manage to type.

Gwen: Candy, right.  In that case, Lord Shen is a J, because he gets things done.  He makes plans and he sees them through.  His whole life is about plans.  He knows what he wants, and he does whatever it takes to get it.  Everything has to be perfect, everything has to be just the way he pictured it.  And he’s very judgmental about everyone around him.  Therefore, he must be a Judger.

Phil:  Pfft, yeah right.

Your turn, Phil.

Phil: Shen is totally a P, because he’s funny!  He seems like he’d be a lot of fun to be around, if only he wasn’t evil.  And he’s a P because all his plans keep going wrong!  They keep blowing up in his face, and every time he tries to change fate he just blunders into it over and over.  Sure he’s got style, but he clearly has no idea what he’s doing.  Totally a Perceiver.

Ouch.  Good job you two, but gosh, where do we even start?  Gwen, you implied that—

Gwen: That only Judgers can get things done, only Judgers plan and see it through and get what they want.

Yes.  And also that “Judger” means judgmental of others.  I know, you’d think that the word Judger would mean judgmental, but that’s the difficulty with choosing words to adequately represent what’s already going on in the human mind; almost any word might have inaccurate implications.

And Phil?  What did you imply?

Phil: I’m on it.  My definition made it sound like only Ps are fun, and that our plans always have to go wrong.  That we’re pretty incompetent at planning, really, and just wander around clueless.

Gwen: Well, don’t you?

Phil: Now listen, you!  We…yeah, we do, sometimes.

Yes, you do.  Sometimes.  But then so do Js, sometimes.  Believe me, I’m a J.  As always, any healthy person of any type can have every healthy habit and attitude, and anyone of any type can have any weakness.  Perceivers can plan effectively, and Judgers can be fun and spontaneous.  And both can blunder around ruining their own plans, and both can be overly judgmental.

As with Extravert and Introvert, this suggests a problem with our definitions.  If anyone can be either, then there’s room for subjective fudging, which means our definitions don’t adequately reflect reality.

Deciphering the root definition of J and P is actually not too hard; we mainly just have to cut past all the belittling stereotypes.  Once we do, we end up with this clear, binary definition: that Js prefer to take action first and consider options second, while Ps prefer to consider options first and take action second.  There are times for both, and either can result in every ability and aptitude; they’ll just do it in different ways.

Now, like with E and I, we consider how Shen would be if he were a J, and then we consider how he would be if he were a P.  And then we see which matches up!  So you two, what would Shen be like if he were a Perceiver?  If he naturally preferred to consider options first, then take action after.

Gwen: You take this one.

Phil: Alright, starting where Shen meets Po…  Hm, I think I see where this is going, because if Shen were a P, he’d probably act differently from how he does in the movie.

How so?

Phil: If he were a P, he wouldn’t be so stilted and pre-scripted.  He’d roll with things better, and wouldn’t be so surprised when Po throws him curveballs.

Of course a healthy J can learn to adapt and roll with things.

Phil: Yeah, but I think if Shen were a P, he’d probably bounce off of Po’s surprises pretty naturally.  And if he was clinging to a script—because hey, sometimes even I like having a plan—I think a P Shen would be so focused on following his script that he wouldn’t even notice Po messing it up.  I mean, that’s how I get when I’m trying to follow a plan to the letter, I kinda get oblivious, because scripted isn’t normally how I roll, so I have to cling hard to the plan or just let it go.

Very observant!  Of course, a healthy P could learn to be less clingy to their plans, but you’re right, it would be harder.  Now Gwen, same situation, where Shen first meets Po.  What would a J Shen be like?

Gwen: As a J, Shen would always have *some* kind of plan, even if it’s a really adaptive one.  And when Po messed up the plan, Shen would be surprised and maybe a little hesitant, trying to figure out what to do.  But he wouldn’t be oblivious to Po messing up his perfect script, because he’s used to having plans, so he wouldn’t be clinging as hard to it as, well, Phil would.

Phil: Yeah, we know it’s true.

Alright, so how does Shen in the movie compare?  Is he all P, all J, or a mix?

Gwen: He appears to be entirely J.  At no point does he even come close to observing first; he’s always acting first and then observing after.

Phil: Yeah, she’s right.

Sounds good!  Now, if our definitions are consistent, then this evaluation should remain true for everything Shen does and says throughout the whole movie.  This is because well-written characters are consistent yet complex, the way real people are.  If we just look at one scene in isolation, we might get in danger of cherry-picking scenes that seem to support the answer we want.

But instead of walking through every single scene in the movie, I’m going to click on a random place in the movie and see what comes up…

Okay, that’s Po eating noodles.  Let’s find a better scene.

Here we go!  Po confronting Shen inside Shen’s factory, after Po has found out that Shen killed Po’s parents.  Shen has no script this time; he hasn’t been able to rehearse this encounter.  And yet every time he taunts Po, it’s all very deliberate, first speaking and then seeing how Po handles it.  A Perceiver Shen, by contrast, would be distinctly more fluid in his taunts, constantly observing Po and poking him in just the right places, rather than firing off a carefully calculated jibe and then waiting to see how Po responds.  A Perceiver Shen would be constantly reacting to Po, just as Po is always reacting to everything.  Observing first, then acting.

Certainly, a Judger could learn to be fluid in the moment, and a Perceiver could learn to be deliberate and proactive, yet they’ll still naturally prioritize the one their mind cares about most: action or observation.  Here Shen consistently prioritizes action first, both in taunting Po and in fighting him.  He acts first, and only afterward observes the results.

The same ends up holding true throughout the whole movie.  In every scene, Shen consistently acts first before observing and considering results or alternative actions.  Every single time.  Just as he’s purely Extraverted, he’s also purely a Judger.  That’s the way solid definitions are supposed to work.

So now we have two of the four letters!  And these are perhaps the two most important letters, displaying a person’s Scope, the primary form of information they focus on most.  Shen is an Extraverted Judger, an EJ.

And now that we have two letters, we can see what their combined effect is.  By exploring the way letter combinations work, we can verify whether the individual letters we’ve arrived at are correct.  If our definitions are accurate and consistent, then Shen, as an EJ, should display all the characteristics we expect from EJs in general.

There are four EJ types: ENFJ, ENTJ, ESFJ, and ESTJ.  What do these four types have in common, unique among all the other types?  Of the four types of information—Principles, Motives, Action, and Data—EJs focus first and foremost on Action.  For all four EJs, Action is their first cognitive step.  And no other type besides the EJs starts with Action.  This is because Action is what matters most to EJs, deep down.  Going forward and just doing what needs to be done.  As Judgers who look outward at the world for information, EJs are constantly concerned with how their own actions can affect the lives of themselves and others.

Also, all the EJs have the same weakest area, the same last cognitive step, which their mind naturally cares about least, and so focuses on the least.  This is Data, the ability to notice details in situations, and draw correct conclusions from those details.  Of all the types, EJs are naturally weakest in noticing details and drawing correct conclusions.  They may simply fail to pick up on details, or they may make dangerously oversimplified and inaccurate conclusions from the details they see.

So, if we’re right that Shen is an E and a J, then he should also be an EJ, focusing first on Action and last on Data.  Is this what Shen does?

Gwen: Well the guy is all about Action, isn’t he?  To a fault.  He’s a Judger, sure, but more than that, he’s always about going forward and doing things right away.  I’m a Judger too, but as an IJ I’m more about making things work in general, while Shen is all about charging forward and doing things immediately.

Phil: Two words: “Keep firing!!”  I mean, come on, the panda is hurling your shots back into your fleet, destroying all your ships!  If you stop firing, the panda’s got nothing.  Just stop firing, you dolt!  But no, Shen has to keep *acting,* he can’t just stop and evaluate.  If you’re doing something that’s literally blowing up in your face, then by all means, keep doing it harder, right Shen?  /facepalm

Gwen: Also, his whole motivation seems to be based on faulty conclusions.  He’s convinced his parents hated him, because they banished him.  He missed all the details that would be obvious to most people, like the reasons why his parents banished him…like genocide, for instance.  His parents wanted to prevent him from destroying his life.  They failed, but they still loved him.

Phil: And all the time, Shen keeps jumping to conclusions overeagerly.  First he’s sure he killed all the pandas.  Apparently a whole ton of them got away; talk about missing out on your details, Shen!  Then he draws the rash conclusion that no one can stop him, because he missed the little detail that there are still pandas.  Then when he finds out about Po, he jumps to the conclusion that the panda must be some fearsome nemesis.  And then he keeps thinking Po is dead, over and over.  And so on.  He keeps jumping to conclusions with the soothsayer, and he actually thinks that if he takes enough decisive Action then he can cancel out her unpleasant Data.  He tells her, “Then I will kill him, and make you wrong.”  Okay, the future-seer has said your only way out is to stop being evil.  So you think being more evil is gonna change that Data?  Wow, bro.  He’s so busy doing Action that he can’t slow down and learn anything whatsoever.

Wow, nice guys.  Remember, though, that Shen is an unhealthy EJ.  Any healthy EJ can get good at understanding Data and conclusions; it’ll still be hard for them because it’s what their mind focuses on least, but they can learn to get good at it.  And while unhealthy EJs like Shen may blow up their own lives due to their rash Action, healthier EJs learn to be decisive and powerful without hurting themselves or others.

So then, Shen does seem to be an Extravert, a Judger, and also an Extraverted Judger, showing the typical qualities of EJs.  We won’t take time to walk through how different Shen would be if he were an EP, an IP, or an IJ!  But it’s still a cool mental exercise.

Now, for the middle letters!  We’re getting close, we know Shen is one of four types: ENFJ, ENTJ, ESFJ, or ESTJ.  Now, guys, let’s go back to S and N.  You ready?

Phil: I was born ready.

Gwen: Shen’s an S.

Phil: Hey no fair, I wasn’t ready!  Okay, Shen is totally an N.  How could you possibly think he’s an S?

Gwen: Are you kidding?  When he first comes back, did you see the way he took out all the city guards in one swipe?  And then he takes on three kung fu masters, by himself!

Phil: Ah, you’re using the “Sensors are more athletic” definition, huh?

Gwen: Justin’s giving me candy.  So yes.  Also, I’m using the “Sensors are more practical” stereotype, and Shen is clearly practical!  He has no time for anyone’s ideals.  His whole premise is the practicality of guns over the age-old ideals of martial arts.  He may be a little too practical and concrete, even.  So yes, Sensor.

Phil: Alright, I’ll see your stereotype, and raise you an “iNtuitives are smart” stereotype of my own.

Gwen: Oh gosh, here we go.

Phil: You’re right, Shen is all about guns.  Because he invented them!  Sensors can’t invent things; they’re mostly assistants, grunts, and mechanics.

Gwen: Did you seriously just say—?

Phil: I get candy for being a jerk too, so bear with me here.  Shen has to be an iNtuitive, because he’s always thinking in the abstract.  That’s how he came up with guns when everyone else was looking at the fireworks right in front of them.  That’s how he sees his plans through.  Sensors don’t do that.

Gwen: I am going to throw my candy at your head.

Phil: I’m still right.

Alright!  This is how it starts, all the anger and bitterness.  This is how all the spite on the internet gets started, because simplistic definitions can quickly become insulting.  Any healthy person can be both inventive and practical, both athletic and abstract.  Therefore, if any healthy person can do both, then we don’t have solid, binary definitions here.  We need to find out what’s really at the root of S and N.  What causes all the real symptoms of S and N?

Cutting through the demeaning stereotypes, we eventually arrive at this fundamental definition of S and N:  Sensors focus first on actual experience, and draw conceptual understanding from those experiences.  iNtuitives do the reverse: they focus first on concepts, and then apply those concepts to help them understand their experiences.  Everyone does both, everyone understands abstract concepts and concrete experiences, but Ss focus first on experiences, while Ns focus first on concepts.  You can’t do both first; you have to choose one, and do the other second.  This makes the definition clear, clean, and binary.  There’s no wiggle room, no exceptions, and no overlap; either you’re an S or an N.  And in practice, Ns will always, consistently focus on concepts first, while Ss will always focus first on actual experience, due to the innermost desires of each.  Every time.

All the familiar symptoms and tendencies of S and N end up resulting from this core definition.  Are Sensors more concrete?  Often times, yes, because a focus on actual experience naturally results in a focus on concrete, literal things.  iNtuitives can learn to be concrete-minded too, but it’s not where they naturally focus.  Are iNtuitives more abstract?  Often, sure, because a focus on concepts results in a more abstract mindset.  But Sensors can learn to be abstract too; it’s just not where they naturally focus.  Everyone can do both.

So the fact that Shen invented firearms tells us nothing at all, because both Ns and Ss could do that.  We can find times when he thinks in the abstract, and other times when he thinks more concretely, because everyone does both; we just focus a little more on the one we’re most used to.  His martial arts prowess does not make him an S; it’s not about what he can do, it’s about how he approaches doing it.  Everyone can do everything, we just approach it in different ways.

Yet once we get down to the actual, clear definitions of S and N, what will Shen turn out to be?  Remember, if our definitions are effective and accurate, then Shen should be purely S or purely N, with no overlap or exceptions.  So, does he focus first on experiences, and derive concepts from them?  Or does he focus first on concepts, and apply them to his experiences?

Gwen: Experiences, all the way.

Phil: Yeah…she’s right.

Gwen: Gwen 2, Phil 1.

Phil: I’m ignoring that.  Because yeah, everything about Shen revolves around his experiences.  He got burned in the past, so now he’s out to burn the world.  He views all his conceptual beliefs through the lens of his experiences, not the other way around.  Even when he wants to know the future, he wants to know what events and experiences are going to happen, instead of wanting to know what concepts are worth fighting for.

Speaking of the future, though, what about this?  Shen comments, “The dead exist in the past, and I must turn to the future.”  Isn’t that an N thing to say?  Isn’t that a focus on the future, while Ss think more about the past and present?

Gwen: What, are you saying I’m incapable of thinking about the future?

Well, are you?

Gwen: No!  Sure, I do think of the past and present more often.  That just makes sense, because the past and present have really happened!  But that doesn’t mean I can’t think of the future, it just means I think about it a little less often, that’s all.

Phil: Also, even though Shen says he’s looking to the future, it’s all an escape from the past.  He’s motivated by the past.  All his plans for a Shen-tastic future full of peacocky goodness are all motivated by the past.  He lives in the past, no matter how much he tries to hide from it.

So you’re saying it’s not unhealthy to live in the past, it’s only unhealthy to hide from it?

Gwen: It’s unhealthy to hide from what your mind wants to focus on.  When you try, you’re only fighting yourself.  Shen’s deepest desires cause him to think as a Sensor, focusing first on experiences.  If he tries to hide from that, then he’s fighting his deepest desires.

Phil: No wonder he’s cranky.

Gwen: Hiding from the past is no worse or better than hiding from the future, or the present.  It’s the denial that’s the problem.

So, even though Shen insists he looks to the future, you’re saying he’s wrong?  About his own self?

 Gwen: Absolutely.  Often we’re the worst judges of our own selves.  We usually can’t see what everyone else can.

Phil: For bad or for good.

Gwen: Yeah.  Shen would probably insist that he’s an N, because he’s desperate to escape the past.  But that’s not how his mind works, because it’s not what he wants most in his hidden heart.  The very essence of what it means to be Shen is manifested in his core desires, which result in him being a Sensor.  The more he fights that, the more he’s fighting his own better self.

I’m glad I don’t have to send him a personalized typing.  I would not want to hear his outrage.

Phil: No surprise here, that a guy who lives too much in the past, denies that he does.  Never seen that in real life…

So that’s good for S and N, right?  We could go on exploring the movie, but once again, in every situation, every choice, and every interaction, Shen draws conceptual understanding from his experiences.  Experience comes first, and concepts come from them.

That’s three of his four letters!  Lord Shen is a pure ESJ, with no deviation or exceptions.  This places no limits on what he can do or choose; it only shows the way he does and chooses everything.

So what’s he going to be?  The ESTJ Cannon, or the ESFJ Cavalry?

Phil: Okay, candy or not, why do I have to do F?  Is there really any doubt at this point?  The guy’s a monster!  He’s totally a T!

Gwen: Excuse me?

Phil: And come on, ESTJ is the Cannon.  The Cannon!  Could anything be more appropriate for Lord Shen, the guy who uses cannons as his own personal Death Star?  I mean, come on, it’s not like he’s going to be an ESFJ.

Yeah?  Why’s that?

Phil: Well…no offense to ESFJs, but they’re really lame.

Oh, why would they be offended to hear that?

Phil: It’s true, though.  They’re a bunch of nannies and superficial party girls.

Gwen: If you kill him, do I get his candy?

Maybe.  But before we go and define F and T, let’s be careful about four-letter stereotypes again.  Remember, don’t just shout out four-letter combos due to the oversimplified, inaccurate caricatures you may have heard about them.  You might be surprised, Phil, at how many monolithic titans of history have been ESFJs.

But is Shen among them?  Or is he an ESTJ?

Gwen: Phil’s reasoning may be weak, but his answer is still correct; Shen is a T.

Phil: And I guess I’m obligated to say he’s an F.  Gwen 3, Phil 1.  Poop.

Alright, Gwen, why is Shen a T?

Gwen: Well, going by stereotype, because he is a heartless, murderous monster.  He hears that pandas will get in his way, so he goes out and slaughters them all.  He doesn’t care about the pretty fireworks, he only sees the potential for a weapon.  Any time anything gets in his way, he removes it.  He doesn’t *care* about anything or anyone.  He is hard, cold, and cruel.  This makes him an unhealthy T, but a T all the same.

 And Phil?  Why do you say he’s an F?

Phil: Actually, now that I think about it, he really could be an F.  Stereotypically speaking, I mean.  He’s whiny, he can’t get over how his parents hurt him, and his whole life is pretty much one big tantrum.  He’s a diva.  He’s obsessed with how everyone sees him, always needing everything to be perfect.  Personally I still know he’s going to be a T, but I can totally picture someone using simplified definitions and thinking he’s an F.  Because yeah, he really is a diva.

Okay guys, now what did your stereotypes imply?

Phil: Me first, please?  I gotta wash out my mouth.

Gwen: Be my guest.

Phil: I just said that Shen is an F because he’s whiny and petty.  I mean, seriously?  That’s how we’re defining half of all the types?  I’ve seen so many characters typed as F simply because they’re emotional.  That implies that Fs are overemotional idiots (thanks, by the way), while Ts are emotionless machines.

Gwen: And I implied pretty much the same.  That all Ts are emotionless monsters.  Yeah, that makes me feel really good.  The stereotypes say that Ts don’t care about anyone or anything, that we’re cold and logical and somewhat inhuman.  Personally, I do keep my emotions inside a bit more, but that’s not because I’m a T, is it?

There are lots of cognitive reasons behind every behavioral tendency, usually resulting from a combination of letters.  Both ISJs and ITJs tend to guard their tender hearts a little more cautiously, so as an ISTJ you get the tendencies of both!  But ISFJs are often just as guarded as INTJs, while some kinds of Ts are downright effusive with their emotions!  The combinations of the letters result in such cool patterns, without falling victim to oversimplifications and limitations.

Now before we apply the root definitions of F and T, I just want to point out that you two just typed Lord Shen as being all sixteen of the types.

Phil: We did?  Is that good?

Phil you said E, while Gwen said I.  Phil said P, while Gwen said J.  And you both gave very believable arguments for each, constrained by the stereotypical, simplified definitions of the letters that we see all over the place.  Not good arguments, not scientific arguments; they were entirely subjective, yet entirely believable as the kind of reasoning we find in personality typing.  Phil said N and F, while Gwen said S and T, and again, you gave reasoning that I could certainly imagine finding online.  In fact, neither of you two ever said anything that I haven’t actually seen online!  All your simplified arguments were actual reasons we’ve seen over and over.

So, according to you guys, and therefore according to popular, simplistic versions of personality typing, Shen could be any type.  Any at all.  This is the problem with subjectivity.  Remember, I said that we’ve seen Darth Vader typed as pretty much every type?  This is why.  Subjective cherry-picking and caricatures eliminate all sense of consistency, repeatability, or predictive value.  This is why some people call psychology a pseudoscience, because when people approach it with subjective, shaky definitions, it’s just not science.  I’ve heard personality typing referred to as “horoscopes for people who think they’re too smart for horoscopes,” and I wish that were wrong.

But getting back to the root of things, working out what goes on underneath all the symptoms and simplifications, it’s amazing how quickly the subjectivity melts away, leaving us with a clean and consistently predictive science.  We’ve already worked out, by the root definitions, that Lord Shen is simply not an Introvert, a Perceiver, or an iNtuitive.  In contrast to the internet typing Vader as all the types, there’s no room for subjectivity once things are well defined; Shen is purely ESJ.  So if we get to the root of F and T, then it should become absolutely clear which one Shen is.

And that root ends up being about use versus meaning.  Every healthy person cares about both, but which does our mind naturally want to focus on first?  Do we care first about the use of things, the benefits that come from them?  Or do we care first about the intrinsic meaning and significance of things, apart from any immediate usefulness?  Thinkers find meaning in usefulness, while Feelers find usefulness in meaning.  Everyone does both, but we have to do one first.

So healthy Thinkers will care intensely for things, but always as a result of how beneficially useful things are.  Likewise, healthy Feelers will be rational and composed, but always with an eye toward the intrinsic meaning of things.  Unhealthy Thinkers and Feelers both have an *equal* tendency to be uncaring and cold, or overemotional and irrational, or sometimes both at the same time.

So what about Shen?  Does he focus first on the use of things, and then on meaning?  Or the other way around?  Let’s check by considering what he’d be like as a T, and what he’d be like as an F.

Gwen: If Shen were a T, then he would view his banishment as ruining his life because of all the opportunities it took from him.  When he says his parents “robbed me,” it would be in the sense of taking from him everything he could have accomplished if he had been allowed to stay as their heir.  He would view Po as an obstacle that prevented him from attaining his useful, beneficial goals.  Beneficial to Shen, I mean.  Everything Shen did would be about clearing the way to accomplish useful goals, rather than trying to prove something about meaning.  A Thinker Shen would care about meaning too, but only as a result of use.

Phil: Hm, not bad.  If Shen were an F, he would still view his banishment as ruining his life, but for different reasons.  It wouldn’t be because of lost opportunities, it would be because his own meaning was impugned.  It would be more about the insult than the inconvenience.  When he says his parents robbed him, it would be in the sense of taking from him his dignity, his rightful place in the world, and all the adulation he thinks he deserves.  And as for Po, he’d view him as an obstacle that prevented him from reaching that rightful place of dignity and praise.  Everything Shen did would be about proving his own meaning and significance, especially by fixing all the hurts he’d suffered.  A Feeler Shen would of course care about the use of things, but only as a means toward reaching his meaningful ends.

Nice!  So, which one matches the Lord Shen we see in the movie?

Gwen: Not T, actually.  Congratulations Phil.

Phil: Wait, you’re serious?

Gwen: Look at how Shen does things!  Everything is all about his own personal meaning.  He wants to rule China so that everyone can see that he deserves it, so everyone can see how meaningful he is.  He has no plan at all for what he wants to do *with* China once he rules it!  He just wants everyone to see his preeminent significance.  Every time he talks about how his parents banished him, it’s like he doesn’t even consider how much they took opportunities from him.  It never even comes up.  It’s always about how they supposedly hated him, and he projects that fear onto Po, telling Po that his parents didn’t love him either.  He’s managed to build a cannon-powered army even while banished, but never seems to pause and say, “I could have done so much more had I not been banished.”  Never even a hint of that.

Phil: Woah, yeah.  He’s always about the meaning he’s lost.  Like, every time.

Gwen: I still think a Thinker Shen could have been cool, but that’s not the Lord Shen we see in the movie.

Phil: Hey, the Feeler Shen is really smooth and stylish!  All his focus on meaning makes him kinda compelling.  All his goals, fears, and methods are all about the gain or loss of meaning, and that makes the idea of his triumph very…meaningful.  In a scary way.

Woo!  So now we’ve typed him!  We typed a guy!  Lord Shen is (drumroll please, guys)…

ESFJ!  A very intriguing example of Dark Cavalry!

Phil: It’s still hard to believe.  Shen is too cool to be ESFJ!

Gwen: I slap you.

Phil: Hey, we tied!  Phil 2, Gwen 2!

Yeah, what are the odds?  And Phil, that’s one of the reasons we chose Shen for this tutorial, because ESFJs get misrepresented and oversimplified all the time.  Pretty much every type does, actually.  But ESFJs are stereotyped as…how did you say it?

Gwen: Nannies and superficial party girls, wasn’t it, Phil?

Phil: Maybe…

Now I’m hesitant to mention real historical ESFJs here, because Calise and I have gotten tired of people strutting in and declaring, “Nope, that’s wrong,” without reading any of the content.  We hoped the three dictionary posts would help, and they really have, but not everyone reads carefully before commenting on things.  But now after this tutorial, I hope it’s safe to mention a few real-life Cavalries here!  There are tons of powerful ESFJs in history, including several American Presidents: James Monroe, James Buchanan, George H.W. Bush, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy, all ESFJs, Phil.

Phil: That cannot be right.

Well according to stereotypes, it wouldn’t be!  But using the actual root definitions that reflect how cognition naturally works, it ends up being a remarkable insight into how these people lived, thought, and came to decisions.  It shows the complexity of people, rather than limiting them into superficial boxes.

Other prominent ESFJs include Catherine the Great of Russia, Simon Bolivar of Venezuela, Prince Charles of Wales and the current German Chancellor, Angela Merkel.  Also Arnold Schwarzenegger, Oprah Winfrey, and even the current Pope, Francis.  And the list really goes on.

Phil: Wow, okay.  So then, if all those people are seriously ESFJ, uh, what on earth does ESFJ really mean?

I’m so glad you asked!  Hang on, let me swing over to the COG for the ESFJ Cavalry, and grab a few quotes:

“ESFJs are often portrayed as superficially social, needy, bossy, rule-obsessed and self-absorbed, so you may have been tempted to think you couldn’t possibly be ESFJ.  Well good, because those sorts of oversimplifications are simply untrue.  They’re stereotypes that have nothing at all to do with cognition, coming from shaky definitions of the letters that end up contradicting themselves and falling apart under the rigors of experience.  Human thought is far more complex than that!

“…What matters most to you [ESFJs], deep down, is taking action to create experiences that will bring true happiness, comfort, and peace to those you care about.”

Reading about the presidencies of Roosevelt and Kennedy, it’s neat to see how all their decisive actions were in pursuit of bringing joy (as they knew it) to themselves, their country, and especially to the people they were close to.  I was recently reading a conversation between ESFJ Franklin Roosevelt and INFJ Adolf Hitler, and it was so fascinating seeing how each of them demonstrated their respective deepest desires, natural strengths, and hidden fears.

But how does this apply to Lord Shen?

Gwen: Well for starters, he seems like an interesting inversion of a healthy ESFJ.  He’s willing to destroy the joy and peace of everyone in pursuit of his own.

This is very true, and it’s what unhealthy people of any type do: they seek the destruction of their own deepest desire in the lives of others, as if that will help them attain it in their own lives.

Phil: Yeah, Shen is all about happiness, which is surprising in a villain.  I’m used to villains who roll their eyes at the idea of happiness at all, but Shen doesn’t.  But he believes that to get his own joy, he has to stomp on everyone else’s.  “Happiness must be taken,” he says, “and I will take mine.”

This also brings up an interesting side of Shen as an EFJ.  All the EJs end up being very group-oriented, championing and defending the needs of those on their team.  But for EFJs in particular, it’s all about the meaning of their group.  And that is what Shen feels ultimately robbed of.  His group.  His family.  His inheritance and home.  “My parents hated me.  Do you understand?  They robbed me.  And I will make it right.”  He’s all about taking action (EJ) to fix past hurts of his own meaning (SF), in a ruthlessly destructive way.

Does he try to reconcile his memory of his parents?  Does he seek healing, or try to learn from the experiences of others in order to understand his own?  That’s what a healthy person of any type should do, but instead, Shen goes out of his way to destroy his own deepest desire in the lives of others.  In Shen’s mind, nothing is of greater value than bringing joy and peace to your own group, so therefore, in his mind, nothing is of greater injury than destroying that joy in others’ groups.

He hurls his father’s throne out a window, then gleefully destroys his parents’ palace in an attempt to kill Po.  “You just destroyed your ancestral home, Shen!” the soothsayer reminds him, and how does Shen reply?  By burning a map of all China.  This is Dark Cavalry.

Now in Phil’s defense, ESFJs are often portrayed rather poorly in our culture.

Phil: Yeah!

When Calise made the collage for the ESFJ Cavalry Type Hero, it was hard because so many of the fictional examples of ESFJs are actually quite lame.  We’re proud of a lot of the ones we did find, and it’s unfortunate we didn’t know about Shen at the time, but still, it was hard finding compelling, heroic, mighty ESFJs in fiction.  This is not at all a reflection of real ESFJs, it’s only a reflection of how our culture tends to view them.  So don’t worry, ESFJs!  As you learn more about how you already think, you can find the heroic, decisive, unstoppable force you already have inside you, and show the world how to be truly happy and successful.

This brings up ESFJ’s Type Angst: the Leslie Knope Marathon.

You can read more about that in the COG, but in short, it’s a tendency toward frantic action as a result of the fear that you’re not naturally gifted.  Deep down, as a result of their deepest desire, ESFJs fear that they’re not naturally talented, and so have to work twice as hard as everyone else just to keep up.

Gwen: And so, he invents firearms.

Yes!  And he always gloats about how superior they are to martial arts.  Shen shows incredible kung fu mastery, and he’s almost always practicing, even while talking.  But he still seems to feel inferior, and so this kung fu master wants to eliminate kung fu.  Guns are his way to do that, and he will use them to show once and for all that he doesn’t need talent.

I expect that Shen would deny that this fear is even there, just as we all might do at times, because our Type Angst is often the part of ourselves that we least want to see.  And yet, even while denying it, his every word and action would probably demonstrate his fear.  He never moves a muscle that isn’t motivated by his Type Angst.  Yet as we each come to understand our own deepest fears, then and only then can we grow entirely free of them.  If only Shen had done that from the beginning, he might never have gone wrong in the first place.

Shen’s obsession with his own meaning is brought into sharp focus by contrasting it with his opposite letters, as demonstrated in The Incredibles’ INTP Syndrome.

Like Shen, Syndrome wants to be seen and praised, but for entirely opposite motives.  Shen wants to be praised for his own meaning, while Syndrome wants to be praised for his ability, his usefulness.  He too is insecure about his own natural ability, but not in terms of skills; it’s the idea of natural superpowers that bothers him.  They’re too big and too meaningful, showing that there are sides of the wide world that he doesn’t understand.  While Shen resents the acquired, earned skill in others’ kung fu, Syndrome resents the inborn, unearned powers in supers.  Shen resents the usefulness in earned skill, while Syndrome resents the meaning in being intrinsically “special.”

Both Syndrome and Shen turn to machines to heal their insecurities.  Syndrome casually invents machines to give him manmade powers, while Shen invents a machine to help him beat kung fu.  Yet each focuses on opposite sides of their own accomplishments.  For Syndrome, it’s all about ability.  Usefulness.  In a sense, it’s his way of saying, “See what I invented?  That makes me more super than you.  I take your usefulness away, and that makes you meaningless!”  It’s from this more-useful-than-you attitude that Syndrome draws his meaning.  As with all Thinkers, it’s usefulness first, with meaning derived from it.

By contrast, for Shen, it’s all about meaning.  Shen never once brags, “Hey, look!  I invented firearms!”  Never once.  He’s not focused on ability or usefulness; the whole point of his weapon is to make others meaningless.  It’s his way of saying, “You think you have meaning?  You think you have joy?  You think you’ve earned it?  With this weapon, I take your precious meaning away, and that makes you useless!”  And from this more-meaningful-than-you attitude, Shen draws his sense of usefulness.  As with all Feelers, it’s meaning first, with usefulness derived from it.

We could go on talking about other letter combinations and how they apply to Shen, but the point is that there’s always more to explore!  There’s always so much to see about how each type thinks, how they live and what matters most to them.

For a quick example, all EFs look outside themselves to understand meaning.  This has the result of causing them to want others outside of them to see and validate their meaning.  Whether it’s for their own self or for their group, they want everyone to know that they’re meaningful!  This does not have to be bad or competitive at all.  As an ENFP, Po is an EF like Shen, and Po wants his meaning to be seen too, but only in a way that builds up others.  For Po, showing his own meaning is a way of showing that anyone can be meaningful.  If he doesn’t show it, then how will anyone ever get encouraged by it?

But for Shen, he wants to destroy others’ meaning in order to build up his own.  And he needs that to be seen.  Even when he has his enemies captive, he needs to wait until everyone’s watching before he can kill them.  “Such sad, sad faces.  But now is a time only for joy!  You are going to be part of something beautiful.  Once we reach the harbor, in front of all the world, you and your precious kung fu will die.  And China will know to bow before me.”  Yes, it’s the classic villain handicap of keeping the heroes alive, but in a distinctly EF way.

SF is of course an interesting combination, because as middle letters, it represents a person’s Objective.  Sensing Feelers are all about the meaning of actual experiences.  This causes them to focus on bringing about real joy and peace, and protecting it wherever they can.  That’s the Objective of all the SFs.  When combined with the outer letters of Scope, this takes on different effects:  For ISFJs, it’s about creating and protecting happiness on a world scale.  For ESFPs, it’s about the happiness of individuals as they already are.  For ISFPs it’s about the joy of situations and details, and then for ESFJs like Shen, it’s all about the joys that can be attained through Action, for the benefit of their group.

When turned dark, though, this joyful Objective gets nasty.  It’s not enough for Shen to kill Po; he wants to scar him, to break him.  And as a result, Shen is the one who ends up broken.

As he’s lying in the shambles of his fleet, he looks up at Po and demands, “How did you do it?  …How did you find peace?  I took away your parents!  Everything!  I scarred you for life!”  This is the dark inversion of the group-oriented joy of ESFJ.  In Shen’s mind, nothing could be worse than taking away someone’s family and home.  “I took away your parents” means “I took away your joyful group.”  To Shen, this truly is everything.  That should be sweet, but Shen makes it violent and bitter.

It’s not that this doesn’t hurt Po.  It has indeed scarred him, and Po has spent the entirety of the film working through that.  But because Po is healthy, he is able to fulfill his ENFP Type Specialization of finding who he is, and everything he can be.  His healthy Type Spec overcomes Shen’s unhealthy inversion of his own.

This also brings up a really interesting cognitive twist in the movie.  The whole story is about Po finding who he really is.  He’s a panda raised by a sweet old goose as his adoptive father…and yet he’s never really put it together that he’s adopted.  By the goose.

Po’s father, Mister Ping, really shines for the short time he’s in this movie.  While in the first film he represented in part Po’s self-doubt and humble beginnings, in this one he embodies love, belonging, and the importance of having a place in the world.  He’s the paradox in Po’s search for who he is: he’s the most loving person in Po’s life, and yet he’s a living demonstration that Po has no roots.  Po wants to know his origins in order to know who he is, while his father is afraid that he doesn’t deserve to keep Po.

The interesting twist is that Mister Ping is ESFJ, a very healthy one after his experiences in the first movie.  He’s entirely centered around bringing joy to people close to him, including his customers, but especially Po.  So in this movie all about Po figuring out who he is and learning about his origins and his parents, who’s the villain?  An ESFJ.  The dark version of everything Po knows as loving, safe, and reliable.  The dark side of his search for himself.  This is just really cool.

While Po’s father reminds him that he has a place, that he’s his son, Shen taunts Po that he’s nothing and was abandoned by unloving parents.  While Mister Ping spends the whole movie worried sick about losing Po, Shen spends the whole movie worried about how to get rid of him.  Shen isn’t just hate, and he’s certainly not apathy; he’s the motivated, relentless inversion of love itself.

Of course that wasn’t intentional on the part of the writers, but perhaps they did intend to have Mister Ping and Lord Shen represent opposite poles that pull on Po.  Or maybe they were just observant of what sort of villain Po needed, without being conscious of why.  In any case, it’s always neat to see how the interplay of characters’ cognition brings out themes and observations about how real life works for all of us.

And Po shows all of us how to come through our scars safely.  He tries running, he tries ignoring, he tries denying, but only by looking at the pain fully, for the first time in his life, does he find who he really is.  As he says to a beaten Shen, “You gotta let go of that stuff from the past, because it just doesn’t matter!  The only thing that matters is what you choose to be now.”  Now there’s a true ENFP theme, if ever there was one.

Shen needs Po’s ENFP insights, just as Po needs his father’s ESFJ perspective.  This is the premise of the Type Heroes: we all need each other.  Po needs Tigress’s advice, and she needs his encouragement.  The beaten masters Ox and Croc need Po’s inspiration, just their tales always inspired him.  This is the way healthy types work together, each needing all the others, each benefitting from the unique strengths and perspective of all the others.

Unhealthy people resent other types, just as Shen resents and belittles everyone.  This is why we want to work so hard to show the reliable, scientific power of cognitive typing, because it builds everyone up.  I think it says a lot that in order to tear others down, we have to resort to simplifications and stereotypes.  When we let reality speak for itself, it ends up showing all of us how fantastic we already are, and how heroic and effective we can become.  We don’t have to try to force cognition to be a positive thing; all it takes is getting to the reliable root, and then reality shows the rest.

I’d like to thank Gwen and Phil for sticking with us through this typing tutorial!

And now that we’ve walked through how typing works, and how it doesn’t, we’re going to stick our necks out and type all the major characters in both Kung Fu Panda movies!  And if, inevitably, these pictures invite people to come and declare “Wrong!  Shen is an INTJ villain!” then at least we can all be pretty sure they didn’t read the post.

Phil: Ten bucks says that happens.

Gwen: Twenty.

Thanks again for reading!  Now it should be easier to do character spotlights without having to worry about dispelling stereotypes every time!  With Phase 2 almost ready to launch (and when you see it, you’ll know why it took all our energy for so long!), we’re looking forward to being able to do more actual posts again!  We love you guys, and all the support and encouragement you give us!  And if you haven’t seen already, you can use Patreon to get more stuff sooner, and vote on what that stuff’s gonna be!  Stay tuned, there’s so much more to come!

On the aLBoP Guided Tour?  Your next destination is What if I’m Not the Type I Thought I Was?

The post Typing Tutorial (plus Character Spotlight!) appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.

The post Q&A Quickie: Letter Combinations appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.

This time we have lots of quotes from a bunch of *different* PPPs, about the common misconceptions people have about Feelers’ relationship with logic, and what defines F in general.  All these quotes happen to be by my INFJ because, even though we read through your emails, determine your type, and figure out bullet points of what you need to hear, together, he has been writing the vast majority of the PPPs themselves to free me up to write blog posts, comments, social media stuff in general, and not go out of my mind with laundry.  Also, he happens to be an excellent writer and has a sexy grasp of principles.  But, you know, that’s why I married him   (Well, that and he’s a good kisser.)

The post PPP Show and Tell: Feelers and Logic appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.

What if, like colors, genders or flavors, Personality Types create a beautiful cornucopia of complexity and balance, where each member contributes to the whole, an equal and necessary component, without which there would be a gaping hole?  And what if becoming special is simply a matter of owning who you are and choosing to pursue the very thing *you* love most?

These are Type Specializations.

This topic is one of my very favorite things about personality typing because it’s so wrapped up in what every type *is* and not only what every type specializes in, but what *drives* every type.  It’s easy to focus on cursory traits that may or may not come with a certain type – yes, ISTJs are usually fond of rules and yes, ENTPs often like taking risks; yes, INFPs spend a lot of time exploring inside their own heads and yes, ESFJs can often be found being great hosts and hostesses – but why?  What is that common thread that laces itself through a personality type?  What means the world to *your* personality?

Type Specializations are made up of two components, Scope and Objective.

Scope

Scope is a type’s field of view, to which they unconsciously and primarily apply all information.  Where does your mind go when you don’t have to be thinking about something else?  What do you love most and therefore apply all other information back to?

 

Theoretical vs. Particular (I vs. E)

As Optimism, Pessimism and What We Do About It explained (though perhaps not my best explanation ever), Introverts focus on people in theory, whereas Extraverts focus on particular people.

Since Introverts spend the most time working with information inside their heads, where people are fairly theoretical, they think first about how information applies to people in general — i.e. “someone like this.”

Extraverts spend the most time getting information from the people right in front of them, so they think first about how a particular individual would interact with the information they have — i.e “Larry.”

For example, if I were to discuss ninjas vs. samurai with My INFJ, he would apply our discussion first to theoretical people inside his head, and would say things like, “Well, ninjas are cool because of the whole silent but deadly thing, but I can appreciate how samurai make honor and chivalry look bad-a.”

My ENFJ mom, on the other hand, would apply our discussion first to particular people she’s interacted with, and would say something like, “I knew a samurai once and he was one of the nicest guys.  You know, just a great family man and he told really funny jokes about katanas.  There was a ninja who worked in my office and he was… nice enough.  He didn’t kill anyone *I* knew, so I can’t really complain.  I can’t say I’d invite him over for dinner, but I guess if he came I wouldn’t necessarily know…”

Though the other I/E types might differ in specifics from those examples of INFJ and ENFJ, it would still hold true that the Introverts would apply things to people Theoretically first, and the Extraverts would apply things first to Particular people they’ve interacted with.  That is, of course, not to say that Introverts can’t apply things to Particular people or that Extraverts can’t apply things to people Theoretically; like all things in personality typing, it’s about which one you focus on and prioritize.

Collective vs. Individual (J vs. P)

The second variable that Scope is based on is Collective vs. Individual.

Judgers, with their cognitive emphasis on decisions, plans and worldview, are focused on the Direction of Action (remember the Map?).  Their focus on planning and universal principles in their decision making means that they have to look at the collective actions of people to understand ahead of time how people and the world will act in order to make plans ahead of time.  As they watch the decisions of the collective, they care more and more about the destination of that collective.

Perceivers, with their cognitive emphasis on possibilities, observation and information gathering, are focused on the Exploration of Action (action like a Toolbox).  Their focus on exploring all the possible options makes it necessary to have trusted sources of information, and therefore need to understand the motivations of individuals.  As they come to understand the motivations of individuals, they grow to care more about exploring those individuals and fulfilling their needs.

These four combinations of two variables create the four Scopes.

The Four Scopes

IJs, who focus on Principles and the root causes behind the workings of the universe, care most about the direction of the World as a whole, cultures, etc.  They are the most zoomed out of all the types, focused on the big picture of where the world is going and why.

 

 

 EJs, who focus on Action and the Consequences and results of choices, care most about the direction of their particular Group, those united with them in common purpose and directive.  They are the second most zoomed out of the types, in terms of size of scope, focusing on the collective outcome of many specific individuals, though their emphasis on Specific Action tends to make them more zoomed in.

 

 

 EPs, who focus on Observation and the Motivations behind character, care most about the exploration of particular Individuals, starting with the exploration of themselves.  They are the second most zoomed in of the types, in terms of size of scope, focusing on single specific individuals, though their emphasis on Universal Action tends to make them more zoomed out.

 

 

 IPs, who focus on Data and Details and the conclusions they lead to, care most about the exploration of Situations and what theoretical individuals could choose in a given scenario based on those details.  They are the most zoomed in of all the types, focused on delving deep into specific, specialized information. 

As different as these four Scopes are, like the sixteen types within them, they are equal, so long as each recognizes the need and value of the other three.  We cannot fully understand the information in which we specialize unless we see it in context of everyone else’s specialization.

 

Objective

Objective is what a type tries to accomplish with and for their Scope.  It’s also what side or angle of that vast Scope they prioritize.  Where do you sink your precious effort?  What excites you about your Scope, more than anything?Objective is based on a person’s two middle letters.  It’s actually much easier to explain than Scope, with variables drawn pretty directly from the definitions of the letters they demonstrate.

 

Puzzle Pieces vs. Word-Nets (S vs. N)

I’ve explained in this post, as well as in LMA that Sensors think in Puzzle Pieces; they examine one piece of information at a time, and each piece of information has its own unique spot in the whole, where it snaps into place.  Meanwhile, I explained in those same posts that iNtuitives think in Word-Nets or Webs; each piece of information connects to every other through patterns and has to be viewed in context of all the other pieces of information.

The same principles apply to how each type focuses on Objective.

Sensors focus on the intrinsic value that their Scope already has to offer.  Their Objective centers on getting the most out of what their Scope already is, and prefer not to change their Scope.  But a truly healthy Sensor will realize that in order to appreciate and utilize everything they love about their Scope, the bad parts of it may have to be changed.

iNtuitives focus on how the value of their Scope is increased by connecting it with the value of other information.  Their Objective centers on getting the most out of what their Scope can be, often by seeing how to change it.  But a truly healthy iNtuitive will realize that in order to get the most out of their Scope, they need to appreciate what it already is, and not change the good parts.

Use vs. Meaning (T vs. F)

Going briefly into this pair since the definitions are the same as described in LMA.

Thinkers focus first on the Use of information and the Objective of their Scope is no exception.  Thinkers prioritize and find the most joy getting the most Use out of their Scope.

Feelers focus first on the Meaning of information, including the Objective of their Scope.  Feelers prioritize and find the most joy understanding fully the Meaning of their Scope.

It should go without saying at this point (but if it did, would I be mentioning it?) that both the use and meaning of all the Scopes is essential.  The End.

 The Four Objectives

STs focus on the Use of the Puzzle Piece they care about most, their Scope.  Their aim is to get the most Use out of their Scope as it already is, and to give their Scope a protected environment where it can flourish in the use it already has.  Their goal is to find the inherent Value and intrinsic worth their Scope has.

Since they focus on the Use of experiences, they tend to focus on the past of their Scope; that’s where they gather the most information, after all, as you can really only learn use from *past* experiences.  They are therefore very protective of the past of their Scope, desiring it to be as useful as possible.

They tend to think in terms of right and wrong.

NTs focus on how the Use of their Scope connects to the Use of everything else.  Their aim is to find ways to maximize the Use of their beloved Scope, and raise it to its full Potential, even if that requires their Scope to change.  They love to find new possible uses for their Scope.

Since they focus on the Use of concepts, they tend to focus on the future of their Scope and examining conceptually how to “new and improve” their Scope, adding to its usefulness by going forward into possibilities.  They use their iNtuition to see the context of how their Scope connects to everything else to see what it’s still missing and needs to be added.

They tend to think in terms of truth and error.

SFs focus on the Meaning of the Puzzle Piece they care about most, their Scope.  Their aim is to understand and enjoy the Meaning of their Scope as it already is, and to protect the Meaning in their Scope so that they and others may have the chance to Experience meaning as it is, before it’s lost.

Since they focus on the Meaning of experiences, they tend to focus on the present of their Scope.  The time to grasp the full Meaning of an experience is *while* experiencing it and SFs try to get as much out of that current experience as possible.  Though they focus on the current moment of their Scope, healthy SFs make experiences into something so much more meaningful than just one freeze frame of time.

They tend to think in terms of pleasure and pain.

NFs focus on how the Meaning of their Scope connects to the Meaning of everything else.  Their aim is to understand the full significance and Meaning of their Scope, and help it achieve even more Meaning, even if that means their Scope needs to change.

Since they focus on the Meaning of concepts, they tend to focus on their Scope within time as a whole.  Context is the big word for NF, looking at how their Scope fits into the Big Picture of everything and seeing the significance of their Scope within that context.

They tend to think in terms of justice and mercy.

When we combine the four Scopes with their four options of Objectives, we can see the sixteen Type Specializations.  And it is only with all sixteen combined that the entire spectrum of zoomed in and zoomed out, the collective and the individual, use and meaning, as things are and as they can be, are all fully realized and valued as they should be.

Each type’s *entire* cognitive process revolves around their unique combination of these variables.  It prompts every thought, motivates every action, counsels every judgment and inspires every worldview; it is the end goal to which each type aspires.

The Sixteen Type Specializations

This graph shows not only the sixteen unique Type Specializations, and most the info we’ve covered up to this point but, like all my graphs, it’s really two graphs for the price of one!  The first graph is arranged by Scope, according to the 4Toi (Four Types of Information), *but* the position of the each type inside its handy little box in the first graph, correlates with which big box it goes in in the second graph!  This way, each box is a microcosm of the whole graph!  The second graph is arranged by Objective, but the *tubular* part is that, even though Objective is by middle letters, it’s *also*arranged by the 4Toi, because the four function combos correlate with the 4Toi too!!!  Yay!!!

 

INTJ
The Dragon
World Potential Specialization
Possible Use of the Theoretical Collective 

 

ISFJ
The Knight
World Experience Specialization
Protective Meaning of the Theoretical Collective

The ISFJ Knight is the chivalrous protector of Meaning in the World as it stands, dedicated to the Principles that keep the World Experience safe.  Dependability their mantra, the ISFJ Knight is determined to uphold what it means to them to be a pillar of their collective, which to them is bigger than any of the individuals within it.  The Knight enjoys the World as it is and finds great joy in serving and nurturing that world in a rugged, on the ground sort of way.  As an IFJ though, they struggle with overly positive character judgments and therefore need to turn to the Principles they advocate to be sure the World they love and the people safeguarding it are still living up to everything they were meant to stand for.

 

INFJ
The Paladin
World Meaning Specialization
Possible Meaning of the Theoretical Collective

The INFJ Paladin is all about context and the application of Meaning.  With a fantastic understanding of universal principles and how they weave their way through the World at large, they are excellent at making principles *useful*, turning them into action and applying them to everyday situations, cutting right to the core of *why* things work.  They take the meaning throughout the world and use it to make real life decisions, as well as move the world closer to the meaningful ideal that those principles help them see.  Like the other IJs, they struggle with understanding the intentions of individuals and need to remember not to equate someone breaking or upholding a principle as a measure of that person’s character.  Also, their fear of standing out from the crowd and desire to be liked as who they really are, can make them doubt their own better judgment and keep them from recognizing the flaws in others.

ESTJ
The Cannon
Group Value Specialization
Protective Use of a Particular Collective

The ESTJ Cannon is the “Action Corner” of the graph, specializing in doing and doing well, protecting their Group of people with similar end goals, so that the rest of the group can do the same.  They’re excellent at understanding how to use actions and consequences to the pragmatic use of their Group’s intrinsic Value.  They focus on using the Group they already have in front of them, getting the most utility out of the people they have at their fingertips, and their aim is to protect and free up the members of their Group so that they can fulfill their own roles and help the Group shine and work like clockwork.  But while we love the “point and shoot” nature of our ETJs, the need for pointing *before* shooting cannot be overemphasized, and the Cannon needs to be sure not to leap into action before they’re sure their understanding of the intricacies of a situation (EJs’ last) is a complete picture.  Also, being the action-specialist, the Cannon needs to be careful not to judge others’ worth on their ability to act.

ENTJ
The Crusader
Group Potential Specialization
Possible Use of a Particular Collective

Focused on the Potential of their Group as it can be, the ENTJ Crusader is a passionate recruiter to their causes, able to see the future capacity of their like-minded team and make it happen.  They have a powerful ability to rally others to action and show them why causes and purposes matter so much, because they understand just what a Group can do to change the world for the better, given the chance.  One of the main ways the ENTJ Crusader seeks the future success of their own team, is to rush into battle against opposing teams, ready to defend their team’s ideals at a moment’s notice, unafraid or even spoiling for a fight.  But the Crusader needs to watch out for oversimplifications about the finer details of situations.  With their last step being data and details, ENTJs tend to build up strawmen arguments without considering the complexity of a situation and end up hurting or estranging people who may have been on their side if given a chance.  Passion is good and it’s one of ENTJ’s greatest assets, but without complexity it can end up being one of their greatest liabilities.

ESFJ
The Cavalry
Group Experience Specialization
Protective Meaning of a Particular Collective

The social leader, the ESFJ Cavalry loves to Experience the Group and improve the Group’s Experience.  They love to charge at the front of their party on a shining white steed as an example of what to do and how to act, encouraging those who follow in their wake.  Loving a oneness with the Group as it currently stands, they excel at understanding and leading the social consciousness and people love following their fun, charming lead.  But with their relationship with the Group being so important to them, the Cavalry needs to remember to be real and help steer social expectations in a meaningful direction, rather than getting pulled along with them.  If the ESFJ lets their desire to be popular or fit in with the Group exceed their love of the Group and the members in it, they can end up hurting the very people they intended to enjoy in the first place.

ENFJ
The Veteran
Group Meaning Specialization
Possible Meaning of a Particular Collective

With a focus on the Meaning of action and how their Group fits into the context of all of time, the ENFJ Veteran has a timeless quality that both looks to the past and the overarching Meaning of what people have done and what events have transpired, but lives and acts in the moment.  They live for their connections with their Group, which for them is anyone connected with them in common Meaning or understanding, and the victories and defeats of their friends are indistinguishable from their own joys and travails.  But even as their empathy is their greatest strength, it can also put them in danger of Faramir Dilemma, as choosing between Group members can be like ripping themselves in two.  If they ignore what details and situations say about their friends, they can end up pulling down the Meaning of the whole Group in order to protect the Meaning of one.

ESTP
The Spartan
Individual Value Specialization
Protective Use of Particular Individuals, starting with themselves

The ESTP Spartan is the champion of Individualism, loving to explore the Value of Individuals as they already are and have been, starting with the ESTP themselves.  The Spartan’s goal is to see just how much they can do with what they already have in their self-hood arsenal, just how spectacularly cool they can be without losing who they are at all.  They love to use the whole world as a sounding board to find out just what they are and enjoy that self, and love to enjoy others and teach them to do the same.  There is no problem at all with the ESTP Spartan enjoying themselves, but they need to be sure that their healthy stubbornness about maintaining the person they are doesn’t turn into stubbornness about their actions which, as EPs, they’re likely to suck at.  It is completely possible to keep the core of the person you are while being willing to change the bits of yourself that you didn’t like in the first place.

ENTP
The Swashbuckler
Individual Potential Specialization
Possible Use of Particular Individuals, starting with themselves

Ever unpredictable, the ENTP Swashbuckler does what works; they excel at applying and adapting the tools in their observed arsenal to whatever new and unusual situation they might come up against, disregarding the rules and following their gut.  Focusing on the Potential of Individuals, starting with themselves, the Swashbuckler is all about exploring and pushing the limits of what they as a person can do and be, and encouraging others to do the same. With their love of observing people and their motivations, the Swashbuckler is excellent at seeing, understanding, and changing their own character to become the larger-than-life person they *want* to be.  But the Swashbuckler, with their last cognition step being action, needs to be careful not to be flippant with the damage mistaken actions can cause.  An ENTP who no longer *cares* about the effect of their mistakes on others is no longer well-intentioned, which leaves them a hollow shell of the person they wanted to be in the first place.

ESFP
The Morale Officer
Individual Experience Specialization
Protective Meaning of Particular Individuals, starting with themselves

The ESFP Morale Officer puts themselves in charge of the Individual Experience, making sure that each person, including themselves, gets to enjoy and be enjoyed to the fullest extent of who they are.  Focused on loving and enjoying people as they already are, the Morale Officer makes people feel like they matter, and knows how people feel *right now* is important.  ESFP’s biggest fear is that they’ll never have a lasting impact on anyone, and so they may feel more desperate to please individuals in the moment, often at the expense of standing up to them.  But while the ESFP may be trying their best to choose action to make others happy, they need to realize that sometimes you need to make someone unhappy in the short run in order to make them *happier* in the long run.

ENFP
The Standard-Bearer
Individual Meaning Specialization
Possible Meaning of Particular Individuals, starting with themselves

The ENFP Standard-Bearer specializes in understanding the context of Individuals and what they *Mean,* starting with themselves.  They see the timeless intrinsic significance of what Individual people are and can be, and love to explore that people-Meaning and share it with others.  They also shine at helping Individuals rally around the Meaning that they personally could accomplish in the world.  But with their primary focus starting with the Meaning of themselves, the Standard-Bearer needs to be cautious not to defend their own Meaning (especially actions, which as EPs they’re likely to be self-conscious of), to the point that they end up making others feel of less worth, or like they have to compete with the ENFP in order to have their own Meaning and significance.

ISTP
The Weapons Specialist
Situational Value Specialization
Protective Use of Theoretical Individuals

The ISTP Weapons Specialist is the master of mastery; the specialist of specialism.  Their focus is centered on getting the most out of the Situation at hand, focusing on their hard-earned skills, achieved through jumping full-throttle into falling in love with something and immersing themselves totally and completely in it, using their bodies and minds together as a precision instrument at whatever speaks to them.  They love to push themselves to the limits of what’s possible in a Situation, just to explore what can be done in a given moment.  But with both their ST and IP focusing on getting the most use out of their past experiences, and because the way in which they used their past Situations is so important to them, the Weapons Specialist needs to beware claiming that they’ve experienced every possible type of experience.  With their final cognition step being principles, the ISTP may have trouble fully realizing how universal the universe really is.  But this is really good news for the Weapons Specialist, as it means there is always a new adventure waiting and new ways to use their very special specialism.

INTP
The Alchemist
Situational Potential Specialization
Possible Use of Theoretical Individuals

The INTP Alchemist is all about finding new ways to get the most Potential use out of every moment, finding joy in modes, methods and systems, ideas and possibilities, natural explorers in the realm of what could be.  They love to use their minds to explore the world by themselves, using abstract thought to find solutions to problems and to understand the nuances of data and specifics, innovating in order to use each Situation as effectively as possible.  But with a love of mental specializing and a fear that they need to be the smartest kid in the class or be rendered worthless, the Alchemist needs to remember that (as this post demonstrates) they don’t have to specialize in everything and aren’t lessened by needing others’ strengths as much as others need them.  They especially need to be aware that specific data does not unilaterally apply to every Situation and it’s tempting for an INTP to imply that being good at details means that their worldview is correct, when usually the two are entirely unrelated.

ISFP
The Explorer
Situational Experience Specialization
Protective Meaning of Theoretical Individuals

The ISFP Explorer explores the Experience of every moment, getting the most meaning out of every exploration, and every moment is a new adventure.  Treasuring the little things is the Explorer’s deep love and they have a beautiful understanding of details and their importance.  As IP question askers, they’re intent on finding why each moment matters in a wonderfully goofy, immersive way.  But since the things they explore are so desperately important to them, they may try and offset the fear of loss by either holding desperately to the things and Experiences they’ve accumulated, or by growing aloof and trying not to care about anything too much.  But the Explorer can remember that there will always be more moments and details to Experience and treasure, so they can both feel free to let go of the ones they have, and feel free to really immerse themselves in whatever Experiences may come their way.

INFP
The Ranger
Situational Meaning Specialization
Possible Meaning of Theoretical Individuals

The INFP Ranger is the Meaning explorer, a question asker whose aim is to understand the context of each Situation within the whole.  Where INFJs love to find how Meaning applies to action, the INFP instead loves to explore the philosophical what-ifs of Meaning, like INTPs do with use, finding new ways that the power of details and delving deep into theory can reflect on the Meaning of the whole.  The Ranger needs to remember though, that since they explore Meaning by themselves, focusing on details, and Principles are their last cognition step like the other IPs, they need to remember that meaningful details that apply to one Situation do not a universal principle make.  But as the INFP Ranger focuses on the potential Meaning of Situations and turning that into character judgments, both where they excel, they can contribute such a light of understanding to others.

 “You Shouldn’t Be Special”

One thing that isn’t unique to any of the types?  Feeling like it isn’t okay to specialize in the things that matter most to them.  No matter the specialty, no matter the type, we all feel guilt at times about who we are and what we choose to care about.  Be it from those who feel guilty themselves about their specialty, or those who are jealous of our strengths, the outside world is forever trying to knock us down and prevent our feeling special and of worth.

But one of the most crucial principles to understand about Type Specializations—whether we’re looking at someone else and wishing we had their strengths, or when someone else jealously looks at us and says, “Well, it’s not fair, you’ve always had it easy.  I’d be good at that too if I were your type.”— is that no type has it easy.  No type is born with their specialty being easy.

Is it easy for ISFJ Knights to always be there when they’re needed, noble and dedicated?  No.  Is it easy for the ENFJ Veteran to be so patient and understanding with the members of their group or for the ISTP Weapons Specialist to be so vigilant at the things they love?  No.  But they care that much.  They care about their Scope and Objective enough to overcome obstacles, even when it’s hard, even when it’s thankless and even when they get crap, because it matters that much to them.  And *every* type is like that about their specialty.

I’ve been told I come off very self-confident, in person especially, which is a traditionally ENTP trait.  That certainly wasn’t something I was born with and it never came easy for me (like laughably so), but, with my cognition and specialty revolving around the person I am and who I wanted to be, it was worth it to me to overcome my fears of coming off awkward or stupid.  It took a lot of trial and error and I still get weird looks when I wear stripey knee socks or dance like no one is looking, but I own it because my specialty of being who I want to be is more important to me than never looking stupid.

If you want another type’s specialty, in addition to your own, which you already work hard for, then you have to overcome their obstacles too, be willing to put up with the crap they put up with and have discipline in the areas they have, in order to gain those strengths.  If you don’t care enough to put yourself through that, then that’s fine, but don’t pretend that someone else had it made because they were willing to put the time and effort into an area that your heart wasn’t in.

Hopefully you now have a good idea of your own specialization.  (If not, we’d be happy to help )As we understand what we’re best at and what has always mattered the most to us, we can reflect back over our lives and why things mattered to us and understand how to make our lives reflect that passion in the future.  We can also see why sometimes things were hard to give up, and how we felt scared or angry when our specialty was in jeopardy.

So, let me fulfill my specialty as an ENTP; let me show you through aLBoP just how much your specialty is needed, just how heroically and greatly you can use it, and just how special you are.  The world needs your talents, your strength and your fervor.  We need you.  Let’s celebrate *you* and show you how to shine as the unique and special person you are.

On the aLBoP Guided Tour?  Up next is The Cognition Process in Stick Figures!

The post Type Specializations: What Makes *My* Type Special? appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.

But, whether you were completely new to this personality stuff and wondering what the heck she was talking about, throwing letters around willy-nilly, or if you’re an absolute pro who has been studying this stuff since you and Jung were eating bratwurst together, you need to know what I mean when I throw out a four variable combination, whether it’s ENTP or Unicorn-Daisy-Tomato-Orange.  Personality Typing means squat if you have an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of what the variables mean in the first place.

And so here, boys and girls, is where I define my terms… in no uncertain terms

And because lately I spend *far* more time correcting type stereotypes that have *nothing* to do with the way a person cognates, I’m going to lay it out in gritty, intimate detail.  And none of this “too long; didn’t read” crap.  The human brain is complex and awesome and I’m not going to superficially oversimplify it because some people are uncomfortable with complexity and think that a Reader’s Digest version of psychology means they understand this stuff.  It has stick-people; how much more user-friendly can I make this?!

1)      A way to like who you are.
Personality Types are about loving all your favorite things about yourself, and understanding how to work with the stuff you’re not so fond of.  They are about loving the core of who you are, while becoming the best version of yourself you can possibly be!  The sixteen personality types are all both equal and unique; they are each lovable and special, and those of us who have glimpsed what they truly have to offer, understand that the world would be lost without any one of them.  Personality Typing can help you glimpse that lovable-ness within yourself and teach you that you are valid and can be loved for the way *you* think.

2)      A way to not feel alone.
Not only are there other people who understand and love the way you think, and understand where you’re coming from, there are other people who think just like you do!  Personality Typing can help you relate to others like you, both real and fictional, and help you learn from the choices people just like you have made.  Then, the next time you feel like no one wants or understands someone as O_o as you really are inside, remember there are other people just as lovably weird and wacky, with just as much complexity as you have.

3)      A way to understand your strengths and make the most of them.
Personality Types teach us that the world needs our unique strengths.  Every personality type is unique in what it brings to the table.  The things you’re naturally good at matter and you don’t have to have the same strengths as someone else to be important and valuable.  Personality Types give you permission to care about the things you love most, specialize in the things most important to you and be what you already want to be.  They show you that it’s good that you’re you; that the world desperately needs what you already have to offer.

4)      A way to understand your weaknesses and turn them into strengths.
One of the coolest things about the human brain is its ability to learn stuff, to say to itself, “Whelp.  That was stupid,” and to make course corrections based on observed mistakes.  But, of course, that means that things aren’t known until they’re learned.  These cool brains of ours have only so much energy, so of course we’re going to use them on the stuff we care about most… and some other areas may go by the wayside.  That’s natural and each personality type has its own associated weaknesses, but it also has built-in strengths specifically formulated to overcome those weaknesses.  Cool huh?!

5)      A way to understand where other people are coming from.
As you come to recognize personality types as you see them, whether in fiction or in real life, you’ll come to understand the reasons and motivations behind others’ choices.  Understanding *why* others do what they do can help you know how to work with their natural strengths and desires, and inspire them to overcome their weaknesses in a way that encourages rather than demeans them.  You never have to say, “Well, I just don’t get that guy.  What’s up with him anyway?” because you’ll understand where he’s coming from.

6)      A way to understand why the things you care about most not only matter, but are necessities that only someone like you can provide.
Each type has a unique specialization that it does better than any other type.  And, no, I’m not talking about “This type should be a mechanic,” “That type should be a lawyer,” that every single website seems to make it about.  I’m talking about what you already love, what already matters to you and where you spend your thoughts when you don’t have to be thinking about something else.  I’m talking about what excites *you* more than anything, and how the world needs someone like *you* to do that thing; so that nothing gets missed, no one gets forgotten, everyone works together and the world goes in a direction that matters.

7)      A way to become a hero.
Like I said, there are heroes and villains of every type.  The more you understand the way you think, and see who has come before you with the same exact mental tools you have, the more you will recognize that you can follow in the footsteps of the heroes, tread where the protagonists have trod, and stand as an exemplar for those who follow behind you.  You have as much potential for bravery, compassion, adventure and integrity as anyone before you.  The future of your story and the height of your potential are entirely up to you; who are you going to be?

What do the Letters Really Mean?

There are 16 personality types, each a unique combination of 4 variables.

Are you Introverted (I) or Extraverted (E)?
Are you iNtuitive (N) or Sensing (S)?
Are you Thinking (T) or Feeling (F)?
Are you Judging (J) or Perceiving (P)?

But language being what it is, the definitions of these titles may *not* be what your mind first jumps to.

As I said in The Cognition Process in Stick Figures, everyone thinks, but we don’t all do it in the same way or in the same order.  Personality Types are simply about the priority we place on different kinds of information and how those priorities affect our choices and the way we see the world at our fingertips.  Our entire personalities are the result of what we choose to care about.

The first and last letters (E/I, J/P) reflect your scope of focus and how you naturally act upon the world; they’re based on the order in which you process different types of information.

The middle letters (S/N, F/T) demonstrate how you take in and process the world and the purposes to which you put those different types of information; they’re based on the two functions you focus on the earliest and place the most importance on in your cognition process.

A “Function” is the tool by which our minds process information.  There are four functions; Sensing, iNtuition, Feeling and Thinking.

Everyone uses all four.  Let me say that again because it’s important and too often blatantly ignored:  *Everyone* uses all four.  We just use them in different orders and apply them to different types of information.

• Gather Data in the form of thoughts or feelings, and come to Conclusions about that data.

• Apply their Principles to understand Trends.

• Decide on a course of Action to take based on the results of past actions.

• Observe people to understand their own and others’ Motivations to understand if they can be trusted as sources of information.

But the interesting thing is, we don’t all do them in the same order or put the same emphasis on each one.

Since there are four types of information, we each cognate in four separate steps, one for each type of information.  On each step of the cognition process, our minds take one type of information and consider it using one function (Sensing, iNtuition, Thinking, or Feeling) and then take the resulting information on into the next step of the process.

Each of the four types of information gets its own function that gets used for that type of information alone, different for each personality type.  Each unique combination of steps and functions forms a personality type.

See?  1 Type of Information x 1 Function = 1 Cognition Step.  But all 16 types have different combinations of Cognition Steps.  That’s not too complicated, right?  The combination of a person’s Cognition Steps is called a “Cognition Pattern” and those cognition patterns are really what determines personality type.

You don’t have to memorize this or anything, but this shows how each unique combination of primary and secondary Types of Information and the functions used to process those types of information creates the 16 types  If you get this chart, great!  If not, it’s okay; it just a little flow-chart showing how special and spiffy each of the types are!  And I wanted to use my cute little pictures again ;D

Introversion and Extraversion

A common misconception about Introversion vs. Extraversion is that Extraverts are social, prefer parties and constant social interaction and love to be the center of attention, while Introverts are shy and prefer a good book to the company of others, preferring a quiet atmosphere.  While this may be the common definition of social Extraversion and Introversion in our culture, it is *not at all* the definition of a psychological Introvert or Extravert and *does not* match with Jung’s or Myers-Briggs’ definitions of I/E.

Introversion and Extraversion describe where you primarily turn for information and input. Do you, in Introversion, turn first inside yourself to understand the world, or do you, in Extraversion, turn first to the outside world and others to grasp the world and how it works?  Everyone does both, but your primary source of input, inside or outside, determines whether you are considered an Extravert (E) or an Introvert (I).

In truth, it’s as simple as that, though those differences affect all a person’s decisions and actions.  For example, Introverts being used to working inside their own heads, are naturally more confident making decisions without needing the input of others, while Extraverts naturally feel off-balance if they don’t get input from others–like running around with their eyes closed.  But since they are constantly interacting with the world for information, Extraverts are very aware of how people will affect and interact with their plans, while Introverts may not be as aware of the effects others will have.

Introversion and Extraversion are not functions, like the middle letters; they are instead directional tags that tell us which way a function is pointed, based on what type of information you are processing.  Data and Details, for example, are always introverted and Observing the Character and Motivations of others is always extraverted, but Principles and Actions’ directional tags depend, based on J/P.

Though everyone introverts half of their functions, a person is considered an Introvert (I) when they look inward in the First Step of the Cognition Process.

Though everyone extraverts half of their functions, a person is considered an Extravert (E) when they look outward in the First Step of the Cognition Process.

Both Sensing and iNtuition functions are used to understand how things and people work universally, but Sensing forms a physical picture, based on previous experiences, and iNtuition forms a mental picture, based on underlying patterns.  What defines an “iNtuitive” individual versus a “Sensor” individual is if they naturally think in concepts early in their cognitive process or experiences early in their cognitive process, respectively.  Those are the only requirements of being an N or an S.

iNtuition

iNtuition is based on things conceptualized through noticed patterns mentally.  iNtuitives will talk in ‘webs’ or ‘word-nets’—each piece of information connects to all the others and *has* to be viewed in context or things are missed.

Sensing

Sensing is based on patterns found in previous experiences.  Sensors think in puzzle pieces, where everything has a spot and snaps into place.  They don’t have to look at all the pieces at once because they can look at pieces in isolation, without them being attached to all the other pieces.  An S will pick up one ‘piece’ of information, and just evaluate that piece by itself to figure out where it goes.

Though everyone uses the Sensing function, a person of Sensor preference (S) focuses on thepatterns in experiences in either their First or Second Step of the Cognition Process.

Thinker vs. Feeler tends to be dangerous territory where one must tread with utmost care.  While “Thinker” and “Feeler” are accurate terms according to what Jung meant, in our modern culture (and maybe English has more of this connotation than German), these two terms do not come off as meaning equal things, while an essential point of Jung’s type theory was that the functions were equal.  These terms have come to imply that Feelers are illogical but nice, while Thinkers are logical and rational, but cold and unfeeling.  These implications are damaging, degrading and beyond that, simply untrue.

*We all use both* the Thinking function and the Feeling function, it’s just the order we prioritize them that makes us a Feeler or a Thinker.  Once again, differences in personality stem from those differences in cognition order.

This is an emotionally charged topic and I find one of the groups that gets the most emotional about it is Thinkers who are trying to declare that Feelers are illogical.  The irony astounds me.  While I do run into the occasional Feeler trying to claim moral superiority over us “heartless” Thinkers, they seem to be the minority of the problem.

It’s amazing to me how many Thinkers believe that their reasoning could never be influenced by emotion, because their emotions tend to demonstrate more through feelings like fear, anger, distaste, catastrophizing, and pessimism, which are moods and beliefs as much as giddiness, excitement, sensitivity, security and optimism.  *Every* human being is subject to emotion and while it may gall Thinkers to have them, we are often the most controlled by our emotions when we fail to realize their presence and strength.

Thinkers are defined by the way they focus early in their cognitive process on the use of things, whether it be information or people.  Thoughts teach us the usefulness of objects, situations, people and actions.  The Thinking function looks at information like the brushstrokes of a painting, as the dots necessary to make up the whole, the steps or information needed to systematically reach the end result.

Though everyone uses the Thinking function, a person of Thinking preference (T) focuses on the use and utility of information in either their First or Second Step of the Cognition Process.

Feeling

Feelers are defined by the way they focus early in their cognitive process on the meaning of things, whether it be information or people.  Feelings bring meaning to objects, situations, people and actions.  The Feeling function looks at information like an entire painting, as the meaning of the whole and the desired end result.  Feelings show us the whole of what is important to us, at once, like a snapshot of our psyches’ overall understanding of the information we have.

Though everyone uses the Feeling function, a person of Feeling preference (F) focuses on the meaning of information in either their First or Second Step of the Cognition Process.

Judgers and Perceivers

Judgers decide on a course of action in either their first cognition step (EJs) or second (IJs).  The Judging half of the Cognition Process includes both Specific Action and Universal Information—choosing Actions, understanding Consequences, understanding Principles and seeing Trends.  Judgers rely on their strengths of understanding Principles and Consequences in order to plan ahead and understand how the universe will respond to their specific action.  They tend to be more decisive and quicker to carry out their plans of action, but need to remember to slow down and explore all the options before going forward.

Perceivers take more time to explore possibilities before acting, with their Action step coming either third (IPs) or last (EPs).  The Perceiving half of the Cognition Process includes both Universal Action and Specific Information—understanding Motivations, making Character Judgments, making Conclusions about specific Situations based on Data and Details, and knowing when information is missing.  Perceivers rely on their strengths of understanding general categories of action which can be adapted to specific circumstances, in order to make decisions on-the-go and react to circumstances as they arise.  They tend to explore more of the options but need to recognize when to stop information-gathering in order to make a decision and act upon it.

Judging

“Judging” is the half of the Cognition Process that focuses on making decisions and choosing specific actions.  For Judgers, action is like a map, plotted points that lead to specific desired results.  If you take the right turns and understand where each path leads, you end up where you want to be.

Though everyone acts, a person is considered a Judger (J) when they focus on Action in either the First or Second Step of the Cognition Process.

Perceiving

“Perceiving” is the half of the Cognition Process that focuses on observing and exploring possibilities and adapting to circumstances.For Perceivers, action is like a toolbox, general know-how that can be applied to any circumstance as it comes up.  If you know how to use any materials or circumstances that may be at your disposal, then you’ll be ready to react to any situation you may find yourself in.

Though everyone observes possibilities, a person is considered a Perceiver (P) when they focus on Observation in either the First or Second Step of the Cognition Process.

Still not sure what personality type *you* are?  Well, stick around and read up; this barely scratches the surface of what personality types are and how they can help you understand yourself and everyone around you!  Where to start?  Check out Paradoxitypes for a look at the unexpected side of each personalty.  The Cognition Process in Stick Figures goes into detail into the unique way each type thinks… with more cute stick people, just like it says on the tin!  Type Heroes is an in-depth series that can show each type how to shine and be heroic in their own way, with plenty of fun fictional examples of each type!  I’ve just gotten started and there is plenty more content to come, so Like Us, subscribe, and check back often to see more!

On the aLBoP Guided Tour?  Your next stop is Type Specializations: What Makes *My* Type Special? 

The post What Do All These Letters Mean Anyway? appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.

I hope you really wanted that reply you asked for, Match

Intro and Principles of Typing 

Okay, important things first: Match is a really cool name!  Can I just say that?

Also, I’m *so* happy you’re enjoying the blog!  The things you said about Hercules Syndrome and the stick figure post make me feel giddy  This is exactly why I write and it thrills me to know it’s working and that I’m touching individual people.  That’s really my purpose as an ENTP, helping people see their own individual potential and know how to reach for it; helping people be awesome in their own unique ways

You brought up really excellent points about those individual characters.  I also *loved* what you said about people making personality typing about cut-and-paste horoscopes!  I couldn’t agree more.  I think the one principle I’d like to bring up before going into specific character typings is that, while you’re obviously looking past the surface of types and I can tell you don’t type shallowly at all, it’s important to remember that personality types are a measure of the way a person *thinks* which ends up resulting in their actions, but *isn’t* their actions.  I know you know that principle, but it’s easy to forget that when other people are judging by the surface.  It’s easy to forget that two people may make the *exact same* decision for *entirely* different reasons.  Make sense?

So when I type a person, I look at the way a person talks *in conjunction* with the way they act, making sure to include the way they’re *trying* to come off.  Often the way a person talks is a better barometer of their personality type than their actions, in a way even they don’t usually realize.  One of the main ways in which people oversimplify characters and personality types is by only taking into account a person’s actions or the way they act on the surface, and not taking their reasoning behind it into account.

{Side-note: This is the way I type, as an ENTP, with my primary focus being Character Observation, but my INFJ is excellent at typing people too, he just uses his primary focus of Principles to see *in principle* what a person is.  Hard to explain, but it works.  It’s addressing the same problem from opposite angles, but it works.}

But it’s amazing as you listen to a person talk, the subtle things that come out about the way they think.  For example, a lot of people tell me they’re INFJs who I’m pretty sure are not, but with you, from your one comment (albeit a long comment ) I can tell you are.  You talk in principles leading to actions in the form of concepts (N) rather than experiences (S) according to their meaning (F) rather than their usefulness (T), though by the time you get to the details stage, you focus on use (T).  There are other indicators too, but anyway

With characters it can sometimes be easier than real people because you more often get to see them as a whole.

Captain America and Peter Burke — The Dependable Side of INFJ and What Makes Characters *POP*

Okay, let’s start with Captain America/Steve Rogers and Peter Burke of White Collar, because they’re similarly dutiful, generally rule-following and with an old-fashioned sense of right, wrong and justice.  So they look pretty ISJ, right?  We’d expect the characters in these types of roles—that of Patriotic Poster-Boy and successful FBI agent—to be very sensing oriented, focusing on the value of things already experienced rather than on the conceptual of what could be.

And yet it’s how *unexpected* these characters are, that makes us love them.  It’s the choices they make and the way they react to things in a way that other people might not that really makes them *POP*.  This is an archetype found all throughout fiction (and I think in the real world too); take a role, a position, etc. that you would usually expect to be filled by a certain type of character, and throw in just a little surprise in personality that totally makes the character stand out from what we’re used to and expect.  I mentioned this briefly in the Paradoxitype post (which I’m so glad you liked ), the idea of a person being consistent… until they surprise you and *that* is when they really shine.

In the movie of Captain America, the reason Steve Rogers is chosen for the experiment is because he’s different from the other soldiers.  From the beginning, when he’s a scrawny little guy that won’t give up, Dr. Erskine, the scientist, can see that Steve is special because he has different reasons for wanting to go fight in the same war.  Steve understands what the war *means* and the principles behind it.  He thinks and serves in a very IFJ way, constantly making decisions basing his Step Two of Actions on his auxiliary, Fe, cognition.  Now, thus far, that could totally be a dedicated “Keep Calm and Be There” ISFJ, but Steve keeps taking his reasons back to concepts and is always talking in a sweeping “Keep Calm and I’ll Show You How to Fly” INFJ type way.  His unexpected jokes, everything that makes Steve the lovable unexpected character he is, comes from how much we *don’t* expect an Ni dom to be in a role like that.  Because we’re expecting a dependable, linear ISJ in a role like that, Captain America *POPS*.

Peter Burke too, we’d expect to be the stereotypical hard-lining ISTJ, and we can tell that the FBI makes him feel like he *should* be an ST, but it’s the way he reacts to Neal that really makes his NF shine.  Over and over again, when we expect him to take the tried-and-true method with Neal… he just doesn’t.  He believes in Neal and trusts him for what Neal *means*, what he sees in principle that Neal can be, if he’ll only let himself.  For an ENTP suffering from severe Megamind Complex, the one thing Neal needs most of all is for someone to believe in him, to trust that he could be a good person and to see past his cavalier facade.  The only reason Peter agrees to Neal’s release-scheme in the first place was because Neal had impressed him as a good person and because he saw potential in Neal in a very NF way.  If Peter was instead the expected, rule abiding hard-liner, with the show consisting of Neal trying something against the rules repeatedly and Peter saying “No, no, no!” over and over again, that would get old fast.  It’s the way that Peter constantly adapts with Neal that gets Peter in trouble with other, more rigid agents, and yet makes he and Neal into such a great team.  With Neal, with Elizabeth, with Mozzi and in all his own plans, it’s Peter’s NF that makes him *POP*.

Now, I’m certainly *not* saying, for anyone wondering by this point, that INFJs are the only ones that *POP*.  On the contrary, the main reason beloved characters are beloved is because they’re at least in some way unexpected.  Match, you said you loved my ISFJ examples because people stereotype them as only being good at being housewives or butlers.    In that vein, one of my *favorite* ISFJ characters *ever* is Master Chief from the Halo video game series.  He has that unexpected *POP* because they treat him like he should be such a machine, either following an ISTJ protocol or being some kind of extreme-sports ESTP having fun bashing in alien heads (maybe like quite a bit of the player-base?) but he brings such down-to-earth worldwide *meaning* to everything he does, even if even Cortana can’t see it sometimes.  Any personality type can *POP*, it’s the way that they surprise you that makes you see what they truly are.

Harry Potter and Frodo Baggins — Hercules Syndrome and What Makes a Hero

With both Harry Potter and Frodo, you brought up the question of being Fi doms, and they are very similar characters.  The young, inexperienced pupil charged with the task of saving the world against impossible odds, chosen by darkness (either the dark lord or the dark ring) to be the figurehead of the side of good… kind of against their will.  While that description could cover a lot of protagonists, of several different personality types, to me it’s Harry and Frodo’s Hercules Syndrome that makes them so perfect for the tasks.

Hercules Syndrome is a funny thing.  INFJs are one of the only types where their main weakness is also one of their main strengths… and that’s why everyone hates them!  jk… but seriously… Not thinking they’re very special and feeling guilty for their strengths is one of the main reasons INFJs are so often resented.  They’re just so obviously good naturally (though obviously that’s still a choice), and yet they’re usually the only ones that don’t realize it.  People think of it like skinny girls who say they’re so fat  And yet, that’s not the way INFJs think.  They’re not *trying* to say “Oh look at me, I’m so good, you should acknowledge it!”  They’re just being themselves and where their brains naturally go makes them constantly go, “Oh, crap!  I was shining too much again, wasn’t I?”

In fact, if you come across a person whose attitude is “I’m so great because I’m a mighty and wise INFJ,” they *aren’t*.  INFJs never function that way, even the villains.  I get very sick of the all too common stereotypes that INFJs are either wimpy philosophizing daisies or *the* best type whom everyone claims to be.  INFJs have the most zoomed-out focus which is specialized in its own sweeping way.  Each type has their special, equal place and that is INFJs’.  It would be stupid if an ESTP for example (because it’s opposite) gave up their unique specialization of individuality because they thought it was better/more widely accepted/wiser/cleverer to be an INFJ and focus on how meaning applies to the world as a whole.  Be your own type, people, because you *suck!* at the others, and it’s not *YOU!*

Ahem.  That was a soapbox and not directed at you, Match, so excuse me.  I’ve seen a lot of people lately who are all too excited to claim INFJ because they think it makes them better.  They are therefore not INFJs, end of story.

While some days we facepalm and say “Oh Harry, don’t do that!” Harry Potter’s constant desire to just be normal like everybody else is just one of the special things about him that makes him perfect for the task of taking down He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named  He shrugs off the things that make him special, not wanting the attention and as Dumbledore says (more on him later), Harry just doesn’t realize how unique he is.  Harry has a conceptual principles focus (INJ) with a major weakness in character judgment, leading to trouble separating bad actions of people like Snape and even his ESTP father, from their much better intentions.  He focuses so much on the meaning and principles at stake that he has difficulty seeing how people could cause that much damage without being badly intentioned.  My INFJ facepalms over Harry’s treatment of Draco Malfoy because a more grown-up INFJ would be able to gain Draco’s respect rather than making an instant enemy.  But all Harry sees early on is that he’s standing up against what Draco stands for, and standing up for his friends in principle.

Harry is always standing up for somebody, always feeling the need to save somebody, even when people make fun of him for it.  He exemplifies the IJ, “If I don’t do it, no one else will,” whether it’s destroying Voldemort, saving people from the bottom of a lake or teaching everyone defense against the dark arts.  I’ve seen Harry typed several places as an ISFP, but I think this may come from a misunderstanding of S/N.  Harry talks very conceptually, abstractly and pays massive attention to overarching principles at work in the world.  I’m curious why they thought of him as an S?

[source]

I love this drawing by Tealin, parodying the last scene of Fellowship of the ring with Harry, Ron and Hermione.  It brings out a similarity between Harry and Frodo that to me is just so INFJ: that of INFJs’ learned understanding that they have to complete their quests alone, lest they bring their friends down with them and submit them to the pain and anguish that Hercules Syndrome tells the INFJ is their fault.  I mentioned this in The Personalities of Marble Hornets with Jay, and you find it all throughout fiction with INFJs.  INFJs embracing being the Paladin need a strong support-structure of other types, willing to stand up, give them a gentle slap on the face and say, “Heck no, I’m not letting you go to Mordor alone!  I’m choosing to come along so let me carry the lembas already.”

As far as Frodo goes, in both the books and the films (granted, this is coming from an obsession with the extended films, only reading half of Fellowship, playing LotRO, and being married to a big Tolkien nerd INFJ who likes to go off about the meaning in LoTR ) it seems to me that what sets him apart so often from the other hobbits, including Sam, Merry and Pippin whom I love, is that the other hobbits seem so much more in the moment in an either S (Sam and Pippin) or EJ (Merry) way.  But Frodo is always thinking of the bigger picture, the bigger task; focusing near the beginning on Gandalf and what the quest means to him, and gradually getting a greater understanding of the grave mission he’s been sent on.

I’m bothered by the way many people react to the difference in Frodo and Sam’s roles in LoTR.  I’ve often read people say straight out that Sam was the “real hero” of LoTR.  There’s a statement I think Tolkien would take issue with.  To look at Frodo, the ring-bearer, carrying a burden that ripped him apart from the inside and almost destroyed everything he was, who had the vision, bravery and resolve of character to get the ring all the way to Mordor and not let the carrying of Sauron’s horcrux take him over, and not recognize him as one of the noblest of heroes shows a great lack of understanding of the power of evil and forgets that though Frodo makes it look easy, it wasn’t.  Which isn’t to say that Sam was any less heroic or essential to the quest.  There are so many times that Frodo wouldn’t have made it if not for Sam.  But I think too many people forget that Sam *wouldn’t* have gotten there without Frodo.  I don’t understand the need to make it a competition, when Frodo and Sam obviously understood their need for each other.  They have a fantastically healthy masculine relationship and one that I think is found often with INFJs and ISFJs.  INFJs are focused on the meaning of the overall quest as a whole, functioning like admirals or generals behind the scenes, and ISFJs are focused on meaning applied on the ground and function like captains dedicated to the protection and welfare of their troops.  With Frodo and Sam it’s no different; Frodo’s job is to get the ring to Mordor; Sam’s job is to get him there.  Sam doesn’t resent that, why should anyone else?

Here is a quote from the end of The Return of the King (novel) that demonstrates how INFJ Frodo talks, in sweeping conceptual, focusing on the meaning that is the cause of events, and demonstrates his character:

“I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them…and you will read things out of the Red Book, and keep alive the memory of the age that is gone, so that people will remember the Great Danger, and so love their beloved land all the more. And that will keep you as busy and as happy as anyone can be, as long as your part in the Story goes on.”

Even before we really began studying personality typing in-depth, my INFJ would love to talk about how Frodo, Aragorn and Gandalf were all the same character at different stages of their development.  I think that’s brilliant.  Aragorn is obviously so much more developed as an INFJ than Frodo, and Gandalf so much more than he is, but they all have that same focus of world meaning.

Aragorn is much farther along in his internal development in the novels than in the movies; his internal struggle with overcoming his Hercules Syndrome and growing ready to take his place and return as the king has already taken place by the time of the books.  I understand Tolkien’s reasoning for this and I think he did it phenomenally, but I also understand and love the reasoning behind Peter Jackson (and Co)’s decision to make Aragorn a hero still in progress.  To quote my own novel with an INFJ protagonist, “’So often, as people we see princes and we see kings and we forget that there is anything in between.  We forget that princes become kings, boys become men, and that men can become even more than that…  They tell you that you could never [be great] because you’re not already there.’”  Too often we see Gandalf as this towering mentor and hero, out of the potential reach of mere mortals, and yet if we come to understand that he’s just a grown-up Aragorn, who in turn is just a grown-up Frodo, we can see that we too have the potential to become heroes, held back only by our own willingness to sacrifice and shine in our own unique ways.

Ra’s al Ghul and Palpatine, Bruce Wayne and Albus Dumbledore — INFJ Villains and INTJ Heroes…plus Luke Skywalker

You said that your Batman/Ra’s al Ghul argument for typing Bruce as an INFJ and Ra’s as an INTJ was your best, and it was a very well-written argument!  You made a lot of really great points, but I want to bring up several principles in relation to the misunderstanding most people have about how INFJs can be villains and how INTJs can be heroes.

In the Type Heroes series, I always have a section on what each type is like as a villain because I believe each person understanding what kind of villain they could be is an essential part of learning how they can be a hero.  Until you can realize how strong and scary your type can be as a villain, you *will not* realize how powerful you can be as a hero.  And even a villain still cognates the same as his non-dark type brothers and shares the same predominant focus and weaknesses of psyche.  Just like every type brings something special to the heroic table, each type of villain is just as unique and telling.

I think understanding true evil is absolutely necessary for an INFJ, both in trying to overcome their Hercules Syndrome by seeing how evil they could be if they chose to, and in order to truly understand the principles behind evil as they contrast it with the principles of why good *works*.

INFJs focus *above all* on Meaning as it is Applied to the World as a whole, with their conceptual Ni of Principles leading to Actions chosen according to Fe, which tells them the *meaning* of actions outside themselves, rather than the *use* of applied action, the way INTJs do.  Translation in practice?  INFJ villains will see that the world reflects their principles of meaning… no matter who gets in their way.  Where INTJ villains care about putting the world to *use*, desiring ultimate control the way Loki, Darth Vader or Sauron do, an INFJ villain would rather shape the world based on meaning, using the decisions and agency of others to their own gain, rather than trying to literally dominate them.

My INFJ is pretty obsessed with INFJ villains, absolutely loving how unexpected INFJs make villainy *POP* because no one anticipates a mild-mannered INFJ being able to smoothly and calmly rip apart nations… and yet with their understanding of the meaning behind all action, INFJs are perfectly situated to tug on a single thread to unravel the whole thing.  Where an INTJ villain would be happy to glass a community that refused to follow him, an INFJ villain would prefer to sew seeds of rebellion behind the scenes, letting the people and community rip themselves apart from the inside using their own discretion.  Subtle manipulation of a person’s own choices is much more satisfying to a villainous INFJ than simple mind or action control.  I think that sums up Ra’s al Ghul intentions pretty well; he’d rather rip apart either Gotham or Rome through principles like fear, economics and the worthiness or evil of what people mean than he would just take over the city or the world by brute force like, say, Loki wants to.

As a real life example, Adolf Hitler exemplified the traits and motivation of an INFJ villain.  He’s legendary for using the emotions of his people to stir them up and make them believe that his plans were necessary.  In this day and age, too many people imagine Hitler as some sort of dictatorial leader who just made Germany do what he wanted.  While he was able to be more and more obvious about his plans as the war went on, if you watch footage of him, he was incredibly well-spoken and inspirational, causing people who heard his speeches to weep at the picture of Germany and the world that he painted.  He understood how to use people’s sense of nationality and preexisting biases; he understood how to incite youth.  He wouldn’t have been the effective and moving blot on the history of our world if he hadn’t understood how to get others to rip the world apart for him.

Emperor Palpatine is the same, even in the abominable prequels and definitely in CGI The Clone Wars where he shines; he’d prefer to rise to power through the slow manipulation of the system and people’s emotions than to just begin an outright rebellion of the Republic… he has pawns to do that, ones he manipulates just as smoothly as the senate.  And in the originals, he takes a sick and twisted pleasure at using Luke’s emotion against him and triumphs when he’s pitted Luke and Vader against each other.  Just a messed-up way of enjoying the meaning and principles behind the world

On the other side of things, INFJs and INTJs (like all types) can both be heroes and choose good actions, but obviously they have different reasoning and motivations behind those decisions.  Like INFJ villains, what defines and exemplifies an INTJ hero?  Well, of course, because the cognition is the same, it’s similar to what defines an INTJ villain.  Like INFJ heroes and villains focus on the *meaning* behind people and actions and how to apply that meaning into action, INTJ heroes and villains share the trait of focusing on the *use* of people and actions and make plans based on their usefulness rather than their meaning.  This means that INTJs have a tendency to go around people rather than using them, if they aren’t willing to cooperate.  That can mean a villain killing someone in their way, rather than choosing to use that person, or it can mean a hero choosing to be a vigilante if the system isn’t working.

Which brings us to Bruce Wayne.  Yes, he relies on friends, though I don’t think there’s any type that can afford not to.  Yes he’s self-sacrificing, though I think that’s also a trait of any good human being and I make sad faces when anyone tries to imply that Ts can’t be just as willing to give of themselves for the greater good.  We all use all four functions, iNtuition, Sensing, Feeling and Thinking, just in different orders and with different emphases.

Yes, the picture has a typo. -_-

In fact INTJs’ Anakin Angst is their equivalent to Hercules Syndrome, Megamind Complex, Moriarty Fear, etc. because INTJs are *terrified* that everything that goes wrong is their fault.  Somehow, their beautiful and impressive strength of applying Ni principles to the use of Te action makes them feel like if something went wrong or something was out of their control, it was their fault.  If INTJs don’t get a hold of their Anakin Angst, by *letting go* of control, then they are sure to eventually become the very thing they’re trying to keep from hurting the world in the first place.  Though Ra’s al Ghul becomes the thing he at first fought, it’s out of a need to make the world reflect certain meaning rather than trying to make sure that no element of it is out of his control, the way an INTJ would be tempted to.  Anakin Angst is like Indiana Jones (also INTJ) having the hardest time letting the Holy Grail fall into oblivion in Last Crusade because he can *almost* reach it and he knows just what good could be done with it; he almost loses himself the way Elsa does because it’s just so hard to let go of control, knowing the cup will be gone and it’ll be his fault.

In that same way, Bruce being an INTJ puts into perspective how difficult it is for him not to misuse the cell network in Dark Knight and how hard it is for him not to let the Joker manipulate his fear that Gordon “dying” and Rachel being taken were his fault.  He gets all too close to breaking his “don’t kill” policy on Joker because he’s so desperate to have things back in control so he can fix things growing more and more wrong around him.

In some ways Bruce Wayne and Ra’s al Ghuls’ war represents the opposite of the typical INFJ hero/INTJ villain battles.  Usually stories focus on the meaning of people being more valuable than their use; Batman Begins instead focuses on a world that Ra’s wants to discard because it is no longer meaningful, trying to set it on a course toward destruction ripped apart by its own rife meaninglessness, but Bruce debates that it is still of use—though it isn’t yet meaningful, Gotham has the potential to be, if used correctly.

The Dark Knight makes a similar case from a different angle.  Nolan’s Joker, who functions slightly differently than his ENTP cartoon and comic predecessors, sets out to prove, regardless of the reactions he receives from others (which suggests introverted) to Gotham his worldview of how puny and pathetic they are, pretending to be so great and propping up their “stupid” J plans (while he’s so P adaptive) while the world is really entirely chaotic and its only meaning is in realizing how meaningless and pointless it all is.  Man, it’s like being on an internet forum or something  As an unhealthy conceptual, adaptive, self-deciding introvert who primarily focuses on the use of people and things (unhealthy N,P,I,T…INTP) his greatest weakness is the meaning of principles (principles via Fe), and he sets out to prove the area in which he feels the most angry and defensive—his worldview.

As an INTP/INTJ throwdown, the Joker decides to show the world and Batman that principles are all well and good in childrens’ games, but in the real world, the whole thing is pointless and all Bruce’s best efforts for control will never be enough to combat the Joker’s pessimistic, self-justifying worldview that in the end everyone is just a villain (ITs focus on people on the whole being bad).  Now Bruce (also IT, so same pessimistic focus) understands just how bad people can be too and at times fears the Joker is right about Gotham, but he is able to prove the Joker wrong by showing that even when the whole is rotten and festering, it is individuals like him who will take the hit and show that people can rise above a culture of enmity and self-preservation to show what humanity, in principle, can be.  Reminded me of Picard’s constant mantra of the nobility of mankind—INTJ too ;).  Though there are casualties of this humanity war, like Dent, there are still enough good people for humanity to save itself, and Batman is just a symbol of the use humanity still has left.

All-in-all, I think Bruce Wayne’s focus on use over meaning and the pessimism being an IT gives him naturally is what gives Batman its “dark and edgy” feel and makes him *POP* among superheroes in an unique way.

Albus Dumbledore is another interesting example because on the surface he seems so typical-mentor-ish, like an INFJ or an ENFJ.  He’s patient and caring and he likes conceptual principles a lot.  He’s also quirky and goofy in a way that most people would consider F.  However, as we come to learn more about his backstory, we see over and over again that he’s struggled desperately to overcome a need to control and a tendency to go around people rather than to change the way they think.  With all the characters in the story, he focuses on how to best put them to use rather than meaning.  Starting with himself and with everyone including Cornelius Fudge, Snape and even Harry, Dumbledore focuses on their use before their meaning, even as much as it kills him inside to do so with Harry.

Dumbledore is an insanely healthy version of an INTJ, and so therefore has overcome many of its weaknesses, but as we look at the way he was when he was younger, a lot of which we don’t get to see until Deathly Hallows, we can see that his relationship with Grindelwald and Aberforth was one of trying to shape the world into his vision, believing that people would just need to get out of the way to see that accomplished.  The death of his sister woke him up to the damage his excited version of Anakin Angst had caused, making him look at just what he was damaging, trying to shape the world to be of use.

Looking at younger versions of heroes is a good way to type them since they’re more likely to display more of the weaknesses of their type that they may have overcome as they developed.  If we watch Bruce Wayne in the flashbacks in Batman Begins, he doesn’t seem like an undeveloped INFJ with Hercules Syndrome, he’s a d-bag little T (we all have our days ;)) seeking revenge and talking about how Rachel’s system is no longer of use.  This is an amusing trend to me with some young, especially male, INTJs being arrogant little things that grow up to be noble heroes and great mentors.  The quote from my writing, in the Frodo/Harry section is actually by the protagonist’s father and mentor who I used to think was an INFJ too, but then I looked at his already written background which went totally in line with the character and he was an arrogant little d-bag who grew up to be one of my favorite characters and in retrospect is obviously T.

I feel bad throwing Luke Skywalker in at the end of this section, when he probably could have gone with Harry/Frodo or Cap’n/Peter Burke, but he applies to this principle too.  Luke Skywalker is a great example of an *undeveloped* INFJ.  He does focus on the meaning of the world and he’s usually Judging action-oriented to a fault, running ahead to go stand up for somebody, even when it would be better to slow down and consider other options.  If you are looking for what untrained, inexperienced INFJs are like, look no further than Luke Skywalker who can be even more immature than Harry about “But if I don’t save my friends, no one will!”

Superman—Same Character, Different Cognition

I don’t plan on this being a long section, because we’ve covered a lot of principles about INFJs and typing characters in general.  But the tricky thing about me typing Superman is, he’s not always written as the same type.  This happens with lots of characters, especially ones that have lots of different media based on them over the years.  I gave the example of the Joker earlier.  Sherlock Holmes is another great one, with BBC’s Benedict Cumberbatch rendition being INTJ and Robert Downy Jr.’s being ENTP (pretty much everything RDJ touches is ENTP) and their Watsons are ENFP and ISFJ respectively.  Like I said earlier, different cognition patterns may come to the exact same conclusion or action via entirely different cognitive routes.

As far as Superman specifically goes, there are a ton of different versions.  When I got your comment, my INFJ and I were discussing this and he said, “No INFJ would be caught dead saying ‘Truth, justice and the American way.'”  He also added that they wouldn’t limit themselves to something as simple as “the American way” but he’s not sure if he wants me to add that or not and started Hercules Syndroming about how I should add how he does love America so no one would get the wrong impression…  Anyway, that sounds like a more ISFJ thing to say, and we love them for their straightforward nobility… even if it is still a little bit silly as a motto. 

But then why did I put him under INFJ?  Well, I was working under the premise of what Superman means to us as an icon and which versions of him *POP* the most.  What makes Superman work as a character and not as a cardboard cut-out is his humanity in spite of his alienness.  His weaknesses are of an emotional nature, otherwise he’s just a building-leaping, laser vision, strength knows no bounds, flying dude with not a lot of dimension.  Many renditions of Superman are that boring, and it’s been hard for him to gain traction in recent years without having enough conflict to contrast his strength.  A relatable Superman, to me, is the literal personification of Hercules Syndrome, riddled with pain and insecurity about how different he is than the humanity he so desires to fit in with, consumed with guilt over his strength, saving the world even when he’s hated for it.  It’s when Superman hates himself for his powers and has to overcome that anguish that he really shines.

That being said, I can’t give you an example of that kind of Superman.  I don’t know that there isn’t one… I just haven’t seen or read many actual examples of Superman, and in the ones I’ve seen he didn’t seem to be.  Ironically enough, I still haven’t seen the Man of Steel which the picture in the collage was from because after it came out I heard it sucked, but I had written and posted The Paladin and the trailers had gotten me *sooo* excited for an INFJ Superman.  The trailers for Man of Steel portrayed a conflicted Clark Kent who had to hide what he was from the world, even if it meant letting people suffer, because his father believed, probably rightly so, the world wasn’t ready for him yet, that they would despise him for his gifts and how different he was.  That Superman seemed to encapsulate so much of what INFJ means… but since I still haven’t seen the movie, I’m not sure they did that… and from what I’ve heard… they haven’t

Some versions of Superman could very well be ENFJ (though I’ll bet a lot of especially old ones are ISFJ instead), but I’m still pouting that I didn’t get the INFJ Superman that would have brought out the real hero in his super-ness.

When Actors are Different Types than Their Characters

My final thought this time is that, as you probably realize, actors don’t have to be the same type as their characters and so they may put a slightly different character spin on a character than how they’re written, which can make typing a little harder.  Most often characters are played by one-offs or Paradoxitypes, which makes them close, but not exactly of the same cognition as their character…but that’s not a rule or anything.  For example, I tentatively type Chris Evans (Captain America) as an ISFJ, Elijah Wood (Frodo) as an INFP (Robert Pattinson who plays Edward Cullen, too), Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) as ISFP (which is ironic considering), and I’m pretty sure Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker) is actually INFJ  Those are based on observation as well as facial typing theorems I’m working on that aren’t even in Beta yet…

I guess my point here is that people have a complex range of emotion and being able to understand others, so just because a person isn’t of the same cognition as a character, doesn’t mean they can’t portray them excellently.  It’s also important to realize that just because we’re a different type than a character, doesn’t mean we can’t apply and relate their experience to ourselves for benefit and learning in our lives

{Update 5-29-14: Though I was absolutely right about actors playing characters who are different types from themselves, facial typing was *veeeery* young when I wrote this post.  Therefore several of these actor’s types are incorrect and should be disregarded until Facial Typing is released and the “Canon” aLBoP typings for these actors comes out  … Although they’re not all wrong.  The INFPs were correct… but Mark Hamill is definitely *not* INFJ, etc. <3 Calise}

Well, as long and insanely drawn out as this was as a response to your comment, Match, I hope it answers your questions as to why I typed these characters the way I did and gave you some insight into my typing process in general.  I’m epically glad you’re enjoying the blog and I’d love to get to know you better and I hope you stick around!!  Thanks so much for commenting; well-thought out comments make my day and make all of this worth it!

<3, Calise Sellers

The post Comment Response: Of INFJs, Principles of Typing and Characters that *POP* appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.